How assignment deadlines and guidelines shape creativity, motivation, and quality
Perspectives from music-technology students
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22429392 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eldad Tsabary (0000-0001-8984-328X, Concordia University, corresponding author), Donna Hewitt (0000-0002-8790-2087, New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 60 |
| Pages | 102073 |
| Publication date | 2026-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Thinking Skills and Creativity (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1871-1871 • E-ISSN: 1878-0423 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102073 |
| OpenAlex | W4416448398 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 20 |
Educators in creative disciplines face a persistent challenge: balancing structured guidance (e.g., deadlines, guidelines) with the flexibility necessary for fostering originality. This study investigates how tertiary music and music-technology students perceive the impact of deadlines and structural guidelines on their creativity, motivation, and work quality. Employing a qualitative design with open-ended surveys (n = 35), we analyzed 9,355 words of student responses through grounded theory, supplemented by post-hoc quantitative categorization. Findings reveal that 74% of students associated deadlines with heightened motivation, yet their effects on creativity were polarized: 46% reported enhanced focus, while 31% cited constrained exploration. Structural guidelines were similarly divisive, viewed as clarifying (63%) or restrictive (34%). Crucially, students’ subjective definitions of creativity and motivation mediated these outcomes—those framing creativity as problem-solving thrived under deadlines, while proponents of unrestricted experimentation found them stifling. Motivation rooted in personal investment drove sustained effort, whereas external pressure led to stress-driven compliance. Grounded theory analysis uncovered an interconnected academic ecosystem, where task type, workload, and emotional states dynamically shaped engagement. The study advocates for structured uncertainty in pedagogy—designing adaptable frameworks that harmonize accountability with artistic autonomy. By centering student voices, this research underscores the need for educators to align constraints with learners’ evolving conceptualizations of creativity, ensuring pedagogical structures catalyze rather than inhibit creativity.
Accountability · CLARITY · Creativity · Grounded theory · Workload · Artistic and Creative Research · Creativity in Education and Neuroscience · Mind wandering and attention
The achieving society.
Rewriting the Language of Creativity
Testing conditions and creative performance
Transient soundscape production
The nature of procrastination
Reconsidering Newtonian Temporality in the Context of Time Pressures of Higher Education
A theory of human motivation
The social psychology of creativity
Creativity in the age of generative AI
The structure of intellect
| Highly cited | No |
|---|