Co-creation: Guide graduates in using AI to enhance rather than replace creativity. — 123rf.com
Educators worldwide are reexamining how creativity can be taught in an age when artificial intelligence (AI) tools are able to generate essays, images and designs in seconds.
With the rise of platforms such as ChatGPT, Midjourney and DALL·E, creating content has never been easier. What once required hours of research, sketching or writing can now be completed almost instantly.
For students, this development opens new possibilities. For educators, it presents the challenge of ensuring that learning and creativity remain authentic when high-quality output can be produced at the click of a button.
Redefining student assessment
This challenge is most visible in how we grade. In creative fields such as writing, advertising and design, assignments increasingly look polished and professional. Yet many find it difficult to articulate the reasoning behind their design choices or creative decisions.
This gap between execution and understanding reveals a deeper issue, where creativity is being simulated rather than developed through genuine thought.
True creativity is more than the final output. It involves trial and error, critical thinking, reflection, and even failure.
When students skip these steps and rely heavily on AI, they lose the opportunity for a deeper learning experience.
To address this, universities are adopting process-based assessment. Instead of grading only the final output, lecturers evaluate how students research and develop their ideas, the steps they take to refine them, their ability to reflect and improve, and the ways in which AI tools are used responsibly.
Some institutions also require creative logs or reflection reports to ensure that the human effort remains visible.
This approach not only preserves authenticity but also prepares students for the workplace, where employers value the ability to guide, critique and refine machine-generated outputs.
Digital distraction
Beyond AI, digital distraction has become another major influence on creativity in the classroom. Many students multitask during lessons, scrolling through social media, gaming or chatting on messaging apps.
While convenient, this constant split in attention weakens their ability to concentrate and think deeply. In creative disciplines, it often results in trend imitation rather than the development of original concepts.
Educators are now introducing strategies such as gamified learning, active participation tutorials, and short digital breaks to help students regain focus.
Sustaining attention in a hyperconnected world has become as important as teaching the subject itself.
Co-creating with AI
Instead of banning AI, education should focus on teaching students how to co-create with it.
In design classes, students may begin with hand-drawn sketches before using AI to produce quick drafts or visual mock-ups. The real learning comes afterward, when they refine and adjust these outputs to reflect their own creative vision. In writing, AI can assist in brainstorming or organising ideas, but students must shape the final arguments, voice and style.
The role of educators has therefore become more significant than ever. If AI can produce content instantly, lecturers must move beyond delivering information to mentoring reflection and growth. Their role is to foster critical thinking, guide ethical use of digital tools, and nurture empathy, cultural awareness and authenticity.
AI is now a permanent part of education, and co-creation requires students to understand both its strengths and limitations.
The responsibility of universities is not resistance but readiness to rethink learning, guide focus, and nurture graduates who use AI to enhance rather than replace creativity. If we succeed, the age of AI will begin a new era where human imagination and technology create more together than either could achieve alone.
Fignon Tee Meng Wah is a senior lecturer at the School of Media and Communications, Faculty of Social Sciences and Leisure Management, Taylor’s University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
