Creativity and marketing imagination are essential core competencies for marketers. Therefore, higher marketing education emphasizes creativity in several ways. However, assessing creativity and creative problem solving is challenging and tools for this purpose have not been developed in the context of marketing education. To address this gap, we analyze the use of Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy as an assessment tool in creative problem solving and in doing so develop an assessment framework by contextualizing SOLO taxonomy for client-based marketing development projects. We first introduce earlier literature on assessment and SOLO taxonomy. We then describe a client-based marketing course on creative problem solving. We use SOLO taxonomy to analyze the outcomes and development processes of six student projects and in doing so develop an assessment framework for creative problem solving. Finally, we give suggestions for teachers on how to enhance creative problem solving and its assessment in marketing classrooms.
BiggsJ.TangC. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
5.
BiggsJ. B.CollinsK. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic Press.
ChanC. C.TsuiM. S.HongJ. H. (2002). Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 511-527.
8.
CollinsM. A.AmabileT. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In StenbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297-312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
EltonL. (2005). Designing assessment for creativity: An imaginative curriculum guide. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk
10.
GermanT. P.BarrettH. C. (2005). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science, 16, 1-5.
11.
JenkinsJ. O. (2010). A multi-faceted formative assessment approach: Better recognising the learning needs of students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 565-576.
12.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
LehrerJ. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
14.
LeungC. F. (2000). Assessment for learning: Using SOLO taxonomy to measure design performance of design & technology students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 149-161.
15.
LevittT. (1983). The marketing imagination. New York, NY: Free Press.
16.
LevittT. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, August, 137-144. (Original work published 1963)
17.
LucasU.MladenovicR. (2009). The identification of variation in students’ understandings of disciplinary concepts: The application of the SOLO taxonomy within introductory accounting. Higher Education, 58, 257-283.
18.
LundbergA. (2004). Student and teacher experiences of assessing different levels of understanding. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 323-333.
19.
LunsfordD. A. (1990). Developing creative problem solving skills in marketing case analysis. Marketing Education Review, 1(3), 62-69.
20.
McCorkleD. E.PayanJ. M.ReardonJ.KlingN. D. (2007). Perceptions and reality. Creativity in the marketing classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 254-261.
21.
MichanekJ.BreilerA. (2009). The idea agent: A handbook on creative processes. Malmö, Sweden: Idélaboratoriet.
22.
NickersonR. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In StenbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392-430). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199-218.
RustC.PriceM.O’DonovanB. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 147-164.
26.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, England: Ashgate.
27.
StenbergR. J.LubartT. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In StenbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
StraussJ. (2011). Marketing capstone models The Apprentice television show with client-sponsored projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 312-325.
29.
TarasM. (2008). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 172-192.
TitusP. A. (2000). Marketing and creative problem-solving process. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 225-235.
32.
TitusP. A. (2007). Applied creativity: The creative marketing breakthrough model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 262-272.
33.
VogelC. M.CaganJ.BoatwrightP. (2005). The design of things to come. How ordinary people create extraordinary products. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School.
34.
WingateU. (2010). The impact of formative feedback on the development of academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 519-533.
