A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT APPROACHES FOR MEASURING CREATIVITY AND TECHNICAL SKILLS AMONG UNIVERSITY FASHION DESIGN STUDENTS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.1162027

Keywords:

Assessment, Creativity, Fashion Design, Higher Education, Systematic Literature Review, Technical Skills

Abstract

This study examines the methods currently used to assess university fashion design students' technical proficiency and inventiveness.  Fashion design school assessment is a special problem since it must strike a balance between objective assessments of technical proficiency and subjective assessments of creativity.  The results of 20 peer-reviewed papers published between 1995 and 2025 are compiled in this study using the systematic literature review (SLR) approach and data from sources such as Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar.  Two main areas of assessment practice are identified by the review: those that prioritise technical mastery through organised, rubric-based criteria and those that emphasise creative expression through project-based and portfolio evaluation.  The results show that there are ongoing conflicts between standardisation and creative freedom because open-ended criticisms are frequently unreliable, and too strict rubrics run the danger of stifling creativity.  To guarantee that both creativity and technical ability are equally appreciated, the study emphasises the significance of hybrid assessment frameworks that incorporate reflective practice, peer evaluation, and industry input.  It comes to the conclusion that to prepare fashion graduates to satisfy professional industry standards, evaluation models that are clear, balanced, and contextually adaptive must be developed.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Blair, B. (2006). At the end of a huge crit in the summer, it was ‘crap’ I’d worked really hard but all they said was ‘fine’ and I was gutted. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.5.2.83_1

Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Blair, B. (2007). Critiquing the crit: A review of feedback in art and design education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.5.2.83_1

Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Sage.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009

Bridgstock, R. (2011). Skills for creative industries graduate success. Education + Training, 53(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111102333

Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

CASP. (2018). CASP checklists. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. https://casp-uk.net

Chin, G. T. (2018). Cultural identity and indigenous motifs in Malaysian crafts. Journal of Malaysian Studies, 36(2), 45–60.

Craik, J. (2009). Fashion: The key concepts. Berg.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.

Davies, A., Swinburne, D., & Williams, G. (2013). Assessment and feedback in higher education: A handbook for teachers. Routledge.

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta‐analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003287

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Jackson, T. (2010). The challenges of fashion design education. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 3(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543260903548165

Jackson, T., & Shaw, D. (2009). Mastering fashion marketing. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. EBSE.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

McIntyre, S., Fulton, J., & Paton, R. (2013). Creativity and evaluation in higher education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01759.x

McRobbie, A. (1998). British fashion design: Rag trade or image industry? Routledge.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Nani, R. (2022). Preserving Sabah's cultural heritage through design. Borneo Cultural Studies Journal, 7(1), 23–39.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Orr, S. (2010). Collaborating or fighting for the marks? Students’ experiences of group work assessment in the creative arts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632357

Orr, S., & Blythman, M. (2002). An examination of assessment criteria in art and design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000001356

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell.

Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005). A social constructivist assessment process model: How the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063819

Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956059

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Suh, M., Carroll, K., & Cassill, N. (2010). Critical review on fashion design and product development research. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(6), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00871.x

Sung, J. (2010). Vocational education and training and employability. International Journal of Training Research, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijtr.8.1.1

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: A comparison of massive open online courses. Design Studies, 59, 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.06.002

Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023967026413

Downloads

Published

2026-03-05

How to Cite

Zainuddin, N., Zakaria, M. H., & Aris, A. (2026). A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT APPROACHES FOR MEASURING CREATIVITY AND TECHNICAL SKILLS AMONG UNIVERSITY FASHION DESIGN STUDENTS. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND COUNSELLING (IJEPC), 11(62), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.1162027