Acknowledgements
References
to value judgements. By including assignments that make use of cognitive dissonance and critical thinking as practical and intellectual tools that traverse disciplinary boundaries, there can be practical outcomes for quality improvement in curriculum development. It is, therefore, necessary to implement specific activities that facilitate working through these issues, to unlock student skills, knowledge and understandings, and raise their awareness of how and when they are being creative and innovative. The first step towards this goal is to build awareness and confidence among staff in claiming and applying the labels of creativity and innovation, and provide them with the necessary tools and support to extend this to students. Staff working in other HE institutions around the world may like to reflect on whether these recommendations have relevance in their own contexts, and embed them within existing staff development structures, and institutional procedures and documentation. Others may also like to explore these recommendations more rigorously using the suggested methodology above of pre- and postimplementation surveys.
Acknowledgements
We thank Susan Lawrence, Dalya Marks, Krystyna Makowiecka, Laura Brammar and Cheryl Woods for helping to catalyse this project.
References
ADAMS, D. J., HUGH-JONES, S. & SUTHERLAND, E. 2010. Raising Awareness of Individual Creative Potential in Bioscientists Using a Web-site Based Approach. Bioscience Education, 15, 1-7.
ALHOLJAILAN, M. I. 2012. Thematic Analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 1, 39-47.
AMABILE, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organisations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
BERG, B. & ÖSTERGREN, B. 2006. Innovation processes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 4, 261-268.
BIGGS, J. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364.
BIGGS, J. 1999. What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 57-75.
BIGGS, J. & TANG, K. 2011. Teaching for quality learning at University, Maidenhead, Oxford University Press.
BLASS, E. & HAYWARD, P. 2014. Innovation in higher education; will there be a role for“ the academe / university” in 2025? European Journal of Futures Research, 2, 41.
BONDARENKO, T. G. & ISAEVA, E. A. 2016. Facilitation of Educational Process in a University( On the Example of Master ' s Program " Innovative Bank Strategies and Technologies "). International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11, 12551- 12565.
BONWELL, C. & EISON, J. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom by ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report..
BRAUN, V. & CLARKE, V. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
BRENNAN, J., BROEK, S., DURAZZI, N., KAMPHUIS, B., RANGA, M. & RYAN, S. 2014. Study on innovation in higher education: final report.. European Commission Directorate for Education and Training Study on Innovation in Higher Education, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 9789279350818 Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate for Education and Training Study on Innovation in Higher Education.
BRITISH EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION [ BERA ]. 2018. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fourth edition, London [ Online ]. Available: https:// www. bera. ac. uk / researchers-resources / publications / ethicalguidelines-for-educationalresearch-2018 [ Accessed ].
BROWN, S. & RACE, P. 2012. Using effective assessment to promote learning. In: HUNT, L. & CHALMERS, D.( eds.) University teaching if focus: A learner Centred Approach. London: Routledge.
Article # 3 41