Teaching creativity: where do we go from here?
Sani, Balkissa ; Clow, Kenneth E. ; De Nardin, Thomas J. 等
INTRODUCTION
In advertising, marketing, selling, and entrepreneurial ventures,
creativity is an important ingredient of success. Creative novelty often
makes a brand or company stand out. But how do individuals learn to be
creative? Although some define creativity as a personality trait, others
define it as a process (Amabile 1983). Many college professors want
their students to be creative and incorporate assignments into their
courses that require creativity, yet few business and marketing courses
specifically teach creativity (Anderson, 2006; Hervani & Helms,
2004; Levitt, 2006). Little is known about what types of creativity are
being taught in classrooms and the literature consists primarily of case
studies of methods used that are posited to generate positive results.
While some disciplines, such as marketing, may lend themselves more to
teaching creativity, creative problem solving is an issue that should
transcend all disciplines. Thus, there is a need for empirical research
into the various types of creativity, if and where they are being taught
in the business curriculum, and how creativity is being taught.
CREATIVITY MODELS
One early model of a creative process was developed by Wallas
(1926). This process has four stages: preparation, incubation,
illumination, and verification. The Wallas model is still often taught
by advertising textbooks today. The model suggests that creative and
analytical thinking are complementary (phase 1 and 4) and that
creativity is a subconscious process (incubation) that cannot be
directed.
Building on the work of Wallas, Alex Osborne (1953) expanded a
Seven-Step Model for Creative Thinking that included: orientation,
preparation, analysis, ideation, incubation, synthesis and evaluation.
The process is based on ideation as divergent thinking. Osborn's
notion of generating many alternatives gave birth to the brainstorming
technique widely used today.
The Creative Problem-Solving model (CPS) has its roots in Alex
Osborne's work, and heavily focuses on a
divergent-convergent-divergent-convergent process: objective finding,
fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and
acceptance finding (Parnes,1992; Isaksen & Treffliger, 1985).
Creativity Theories and Frameworks
Some studies suggest creativity is a "systematic, methodical
and continuous cognitive effort of divergent thinking" (Eriksson
& Hauer, 2004). Ramocki (1994) drew a comprehensive for integrating
creativity instruction into a classroom framework from the psychology
literature by a number of the psychological variables that play a role
in shaping personal creativity. While other researchers (e.g. Anderson
2006; Titus 2000) introduced conceptual and operational frameworks that
focused more on the process of creativity. Additional frameworks based
on ideas such as breakthrough, convergent or divergent thinking, have
also been proposed (Eriksson & Hauer, 2004; Lunsford, 1990).
In the field of psychology and sociology, several researchers, such
as Mednick (1962) and Amabile (1983) have advanced influential
theoretical frameworks which discussed individual creative performance.
Mednick believed that personal creativity originated from the
combination of associative elements that resulted in useful
relationships. Mednick's associationist theory is based on the
belief that individual creativity develops via a trial-and-error
phenomenon involving putting together two or more ideas to form a
unique, new notion, or association. The sociological model of creativity
on the other hand focuses on the effects of inputs (domain-related
skills, creative-relevant skills and task motivation) and process on
individual creative performance (Amabile 1983). The domain-related
skills refer to the storing of information by an individual about the
problem domain. The creative skill is an individual's ability to
effectively apply creative problem-solving heuristics. Task motivation,
the focus of much of Amabile's work, is necessary to the
continuation of the process to the utilization of the other two inputs.
According to Amabile's sociological model of creativity, these
three inputs develop the ability of an individual to produce creative
output that will be ultimately viewed as imaginative by the society.
Proposed Approaches to Teaching Creativity
Thirty years of research has demonstrated that tools, techniques,
and strategies can be successfully used to teach creativity
(www.buffalostate.edu). There is considerable variability in the
approaches used to teach and improve students' creativity among
schools, educators and subject areas. Gow (2000), in a study entitled
"Understanding and teaching creativity," introduced the
concepts of Type A and Type B creativity. On one hand, Type B creativity
is what educators teach in their classrooms by the means of methods,
tools, strategies, and other processes such as brainstorming,
visualization, imagination, mind mapping, lateral thinking, questioning,
problem reversals and examination of opposites. On the other hand, Type
A does not follow any rule and is free of habit or choice. Furthermore
Type A creativity is found in children and people referred to as genius
or gifted. This type of creativity cannot be taught because it is a
spontaneous activity.
A less common, more structured and advanced method called
morphological analysis has been developed by Fritz Ziwcky. It is a
problem solving approach that addresses solutions to multi-dimensional
and non-quantifiable problems. A very complex method that focuses on
identifying and investigating all the possible relationships in a given
problem situation (Ritchey, 2002-2008), the morphological analysis
approach provides answers to problems impossible to solve using
mathematical computations. However, this technique is mostly used in
organizations at the strategic level to create new products and
services, rather than in university classrooms (www.mindtools.com).
Creativity Techniques Used in Higher Education
Creativity and creative problem solving education should not be,
and is not the domain of any particular college within a university.
Creativity has been taught in colleges of education, business,
architecture, and engineering (Bull et al, 1991; Mc Donough & Mc
Donough, 1987).
In a 1982 study, the ABCA Teaching Methodology and Concepts
Committee of Louisiana State University introduced a creativity unit in
a basic business communication class. This unit of two fifty-minute
periods was used to help enhance creativity skills that could be used in
a business communication class. The first activity, a quiz, prepared by
Eugene Randsepp, tested the students' creative sensitivity. The
next step was a series of group activities where divergent thinking
skills such as brainstorming and surrogation were used. In the last
stage, analyzing, students had to break down questions into components
(Mc Donough & Mc Donough, 1987).
In 1988, as part of its MBA program, The Open Business School of
London offered a creativity and innovation course entitled Creative
Management. The course consisted of four blocks of instruction. The
first block, taught as a workshop instead of a regular class and called
perspective, introduced the idea of creativity, its importance, and its
role in management. Students in this block were asked to explore their
peers' creative style, strengths and weaknesses in addition to
their own. Problem solving skills and techniques were taught to students
using brainstorming, mind mapping, and morphological grids (Jones,
2000). In the second block, called techniques, brainstorming was
expanded to include a broad range of divergent and convergent, as well
as manual and computer-based, techniques. Innovation, the third block,
consisted of problem solving at the organizational level. The fourth and
final block required students to complete a 50-hour practical work
assignment in creative management on a project of their choice (Jones,
2000). The purpose of the final block was to summarize all previous
blocks and give a more defined approach to problem solving.
Titus (2007) introduced the Creative Marketing Breakthrough Model
(CMB). The CMB model approached creative marketing as a problem solving
activity with the goal of producing creative marketing breakthroughs.
Using elements of several earlier models, the CMB model was thought to
dramatically enhance the creative ability of the individual by
stimulating four key psychological elements of creativity: task
motivation, serendipity, cognitive flexibility and disciplinary
knowledge (Titus, 2007). Professors who incorporated the CMB model in
their curriculum used imagination heuristics, such as morphological
analysis, attribute arrangement, creative analogies and random listing
of objects to enhance forced associative and purposeful thinking in
order to generate creative breakthrough product ideas.
METHODOLOGY
Data were collected through an online survey of college professors
in marketing and management. As a pilot study, only marketing and
management faculty were surveyed, since these two disciplines may be
more likely to utilize creativity techniques in the classroom. E-mail
addresses were obtained from the websites of 632 colleges and
universities in the United States. A total of 7,238 e-mails were sent,
1,508 were returned for various reasons such as incorrect email address
or SPAM filters, resulting in 5,730 delivered e-mails. A sample of 367
useable surveys were obtained, which is a 6.4% response rate. In terms
of disciplines, 28% of the responses were from management faculty, 57.7%
from marketing faculty, and 14.2% from other business disciplines.
Respondents were asked to identify what level of classes each
taught. The faculty who responded tended to teach upper division courses
and graduate level courses. Of course, this would be expected since most
business courses are taught at those levels. Table 1 provides the mean
percentage for each level. The other question respondents were asked,
which seemed relevant, is what percentage of their course load is taught
in traditional and non-traditional formats. The mean percentage for
traditional courses was 82.8%, for hybrid courses 7.6%, and for online
courses 9.4%.
In terms of demographics, the sample was 69.3% male and 30.7%
female. For teaching experience, 12.4% had 1-10 years of experience,
35.4% had 11 to 20 years of experience, and 51.9% had 21 or more years
of experience. In regards to degree held, 77% had a Ph.D, 11.4% had a
DBA, 6.9% had an MBA, and 4.7% had another type of degree.
RESULTS
In teaching creativity, respondents were asked what approach they
used. Infusion involves integrating thinking skills with content
instruction and was used by 78.8% of the sample. A separate program is
when thinking skills are taught as an independent curriculum. This
approach was indicated by 1.4% of the sample. Approximately 19.8% used
both approaches. Individuals were asked what type of creativity they
taught: technical or artistic. Technical creativity was indicated by
75.8% of the sample and artistic creativity by 23.8%.
Respondents were asked to indicate how often they used various
methods to teach creativity in the classroom. A 6-point scale was used
with points labeled 1 never, 2 very rarely 3 rarely, 4 occasionally, 5
very frequently, 6 always. Sixteen items were evaluated corresponding to
four different types of creativity. Results are shown in Table 2.
The Problem Solving Technique and Lateral Thinking appear to be the
most often used. With means of 4.47 and 4.39, these techniques were used
somewhere between occasionally and very frequently. The Problem Solving
Technique incorporates problem solving role playing, continuous cycle,
and problem definitions. Problem solving is the most common problem
solving technique taught (mean of 4.97), meaning it is used very
frequently. Lateral Thinking involves brainstorming, useful ideas, games
and exercises, and odd statements. The "odd statements"
approach appears to be used less than the other three lateral thinking
techniques. The least used methods are Programmed Thinking (3.59) and
Artistic Creativity (3.46). In the Programmed Thinking method, the
technique of "perspective" appears to have a high usage, as
well as "logic structure." Tables and Matrix tables are used
"rarely" (means 2.81 and 2.68)--perhaps they are not thought
of as creative techniques. For Artistic Creativity, "self
expression" and "visual expression" were used
considerably more than the other approaches. Drawing is the least taught
of artistic creative methods (mean of 2.38), meaning it is less than
rarely used.
Table 3 provides information on the amount of time professors
devote to teaching creativity. Although, individuals could record a
percentage between 0 and 100 percent, the results were tabulated into
groups for better understanding. Around 1/3 (34.1%) of the sample
indicated they spend less than 10% of the classroom time on teaching
creativity. Only 9.6% spent more than 50% of the time on creativity. The
overall average was 26%. There were no significant differences due to
discipline (p=0.342), gender (p=0.257), or years experience (p=0.562).
DISCUSSION
Overall, the results of this study might be described a showing a
continued lack of teaching creativity. On the other hand, the finding in
Table 3 indicates that most of the responding professors reported the
allocation of some amount of time to teaching creativity. Ninety percent
(90.4%) of the respondents spent less than 50% of their instruction time
allocated to teaching creativity. Fifty percent (50%) spend between 0
and 20 percent of their time teaching creativity. Given time constraints
and content teaching requirements, this group seems unusually focused on
creativity. This may be due to the experience level of the respondents.
Eighty percent (80%) of respondents had more than 10 years teaching
experience, and 50% had more than 20 years experience. In addition,
since most of these professors taught junior and senior level business
classes, it may be that in these classes the applications of creativity
seem obvious and important.
Table 2 demonstrates how often each professor uses various methods
to teach creativity in the classroom. Given that these professors taught
Marketing and Management, it seems logical that Problem Solving
Techniques were reported most frequently with a mean of 4.47. Scores on
how often methods were used ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (always). Thus,
problem solving appears to be rather frequently used. Within the Problem
Solving Techniques, problem solving was scored by 359 professors with a
mean of 4.97 or very frequently. Problem definitions, continuous cycle
and role playing followed with means of 4.37, 4.32, and 4.28
respectively, meaning they are used occasionally. Lateral Thinking
recorded an average mean of 4.39, also used occasionally. Brainstorming
ideas and useful ideas dominated the lateral thinking category, their
means (both 4.65) suggesting common if not very frequent use.
The Programmed Thinking method and Artistic Creativity method
recorded means of 3.59 and 3.46 respectively (between rarely and
occasionally). Moreover, the Programmed Thinking method rated lower in
logic structure (3.96), tables (2.81), and matrix tables (2.68) than
Lateral Thinking or Problem solving. Of the three low ranking items
recorded in the Programmed Thinking method, all require a great deal a
creative thinking. While it may seem logical that artistic might be less
often used (mean 3.46) in a college of business, it seems somewhat
surprising that programmed thinking skills such as tables and matrices
would be little used in that environment. Thus, Table 2 results suggest
considerable use of Problem Solving and Lateral Thinking methods of
teaching creativity in the classroom. Less favorable were the Programmed
Thinking methods and Artistic Creativity methods. Both methods were only
used rarely.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Generalizing information and interpretations should be restricted
due to the limitations of the study. One major limitation of the study
is the response rate. Over 7,238 e-mails were sent to professors. Of the
7,238 only 367 useable surveys were obtained. The study may be biased
and not reflect of the entire population due to the limited number of
total respondents. On the other hand, this response rate and the
demographic profile of respondents are both comparable to that of
numerous other online surveys. Therefore, it should not be assumed that
the nature of the subject matter influenced the response rate.
Another important point is that the data does not reflect the
opinion of the students of the respondents. It is widely accepted that
students do not always absorb all that is presented to them. One
suggestion for future study is to use a sample of the not only the
professors, but the students of the professors. Further research would
indicate whether the students actually feel that the professors are
teaching creativity in the classroom.
IMPLICATIONS
Like all interesting studies, this one leaves more questions than
answers. While it is possible that the results of the study show some
response bias--perhaps those more interested in the topic responded
more--that in itself would suggest that more teaching of creativity
could be incorporated into college of business classrooms. The finding
that no significant difference in time allocated to teaching creativity
exists between Marketing and Management, given that Marketing classes
like advertising beg for creative ideas, suggests that more teaching of
creativity may be warranted--at least in departments with those types of
classes. Although there were not significant differences in the
allocation of time to teaching of creativity by experience level, a
non-significant difference in the average time allocated (5%) suggests
that teachers with 10 years or less experience may devote more time to
teaching creativity.
Despite Thomas Friedman's (2007) view that creativity will be
more essential for success in the future, it seems logical that
technical creativity should outweigh artistic in Colleges of Business as
reported (75.8% versus 23.8%). While the use of artistic creativity
could undoubtedly be expanded, technical creativity probably has more
direct applications. In general, the creative side of what is done in
colleges of business is at best some percent of the activities required
to successfully manage or market a business. The reported percentages of
time allocated to teaching creativity seem reasonable, perhaps even
high, given the content requirements of business classes. This may
explain the overwhelming report (98.6%) that the infusion technique,
including teaching creativity with content material, is used more.
However there are some anomalies in the results that are interesting.
It seems strange that, in an analytical discipline such as
business, Programmed Thinking was used at a lesser rate than Lateral
Thinking. Perhaps these techniques are not as well recognized
"creativity techniques" as are the Lateral Thinking and
Problem Solving techniques. That Problem Solving is the most often used
technique (frequently) suggests that college teachers understand the
importance of problem solving in business, whether it is recognized as
creative or not. It is not surprising that Drawing was perhaps the least
used technique (very rarely), as most people are not secure enough in
their own drawing skills to feel they could use it to teach others. This
is unfortunate, though, because Drawing does not have to be artistic or
even attractive to communicate or facilitate thinking.
CONCLUSION
This study has shown that creative techniques are being used and/or
taught at the college level, with varying degrees of frequency and
emphasis. There seems to be a need to delve further into exactly how
these techniques are being used and taught. It is not clear to what
extent creative methods are explained in detail, versus absorbed through
a "learn by doing" approach. There is also a need to measure
the effectiveness of the teaching methods used to teach creative
methods. It is also possible that college teachers would benefit from
more training in teaching specific creativity techniques, since
available time for development of these learning experiences is limited.
Table 1 indicates that 92% percent of the students instructed by
the responding professors were at least juniors in their college
education. Since the majority of creativity techniques were taught
occasionally at most, exposure for many of the students preparing for
their final collegiate years is perhaps more limited than is desirable.
Given time constraints imposed by curricula and budgets, further
research is necessary to determine the relative value of various
creativity teaching techniques so that the most effective and efficient
can be identified and shared among concerned faculty.
APPENDIX
Survey Instrument
My name is Balkissa Sani, and I am a graduate student at the
University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Kenneth Clow, Dr. Claire
Stammerjohan and I are conducting an empirical study on Methods
Used By Business Faculties To Teach Creativity in The Classroom.
Your answers will be confidential and will only be used for this
specific research. Also, your participation is completely voluntary
and you may withdraw at any time or not answer any question. By
completing this survey, you signify that you consent to participate.
1) Which department do you belong to?
--Accounting
--Construction Management
--Economics
--Entrepreneurship
--Finance
--General Business
--Management
--Marketing
--Risk Management and Insurance
2) What class level do you teach? (The total percentage should add up
to 100%)
--Freshman
--Sophomore
--Junior
--Senior
--Graduate
--Other
100% Total
3) What type of class do you teach? (The total percentage should add
up to 100%)
--Traditional
--Online
--Hybrid
100% Total
4) What type of approach do you use to teach creativity in
your classroom?
--Infusion (Thinking skills are closely integrated with
content instruction)
--Separate Programs (Thinking skills are taught as
an independent curriculum)
--Both
5) How do you divide the way you teach creativity?(The total
percentage should add up to 100%)
--Technical creativity
--Artistic creativity
100% Total
6) Circle the response that shows how frequently you use the following
methods to teach creativity in the
classroom.
Never Very Rarely Rarely Occasionaly Very Frequently Always
I use problem solving strategies in my class
1 2 3 4 5 6
I encourage brainstorming ideas when I teach to my students
1 2 3 4 5 6
I teach my students how to expand a concept into a broad
range of useful ideas
1 2 3 4 5 6
I integrate games and exercises to my class activities
1 2 3 4 5 6
Role play and group activities are part of my teaching methods in
the classroom
1 2 3 4 5 6
I believe that self expression develops creativity, and I foster that
in my students
1 2 3 4 5 6
I like to ask my students a question and then different
perspectives on the subject
1 2 3 4 5 6
I use odd statements to shock my students' mind and help
them generate ideas
1 2 3 4 5 6
I like to expose my students to problems' definition and evaluation
1 2 3 4 5 6
I sometimes teach to my students through the use of visual expression
1 2 3 4 5 6
Creativity is a continuous cycle, and I use problem solving
processes to teach it
1 2 3 4 5 6
Drawing is important in creativity, and I want my students to make a
great use of it
1 2 3 4 5 6
Artistic creativity is important for business students, and I
expect them to develop it
1 2 3 4 5 6
When I teach I use tables that I ask my students to fill in with
attributes and variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
I teach creativity to my students through the means of logical
and structured ways
1 2 3 4 5 6
I use matrix tables as a teaching tool to help my students bring
their creative side
1 2 3 4 5 6
8) What percent of your time do you allocate to teach creativity? --
9) Please provide the following information about yourself:
Gender: -- Male -- Female
Years of teaching experience: --1-5 -- 6-10 -- 11-15 -- 16-20
-- 21-25 --26+
Degree Obtained: -- PhD -- DBA -- CPA -- MBA -- MS -- Other
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. (2006). Building Confidence in creativity: MBA
students. Marketing Education Review. 16(1), 91-96.
Amabile, T. M (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A
componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,357-376.
Bull, K. S., & Montgomery, D. (1991). Empirical dimensions of
creativity: Perceptions of faculty teaching college level creativity
courses.
Eriksson, L.T. & Hauer, A.M. (2004) Mind map marketing: A
creative approach in developing marketing skills. JOURNAL OF MARKETING
EDUCATION, 26 174-187.
Friedman, Thomas. (2007). The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of
the Twentyfirst Century. New York, NY: Picador
Gow, G. (2000). understanding and teaching creativity. Tech
Direction, 32-34.
Hervani, A., & Helms, M. (2004, May/June). Increasing
creativity in economics: The service learning project. Journal of
Education for Business, 267-274.
Isaksen, S. G. and Trefflinger, D.J. (1985). Creative problem
solving. Buffalo, NY: Bearly
Jones, L. (1993). "Teaching Creativity By Distance Learning
Methods" in Discovering Creativity edited by Stanley S.
Gryskiewicz. Greensboro, NC: CCL Press.
Levitt, T.T.(1986). The marketing imagination. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Lunsford, D. A. (1990). Developing creative problem solving skills
in marketing case analysis. Marketing Education Review, 1(3), 62-69.
Mc Donough, P., & Mc Donough, B. (1987). A survey of American
collges and universities on the conducting of formal courses in
creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21, 271-282.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative
process. Pychological Review, 69, 220-232.
Osborne, A. (1953). Applied Imagination. New York, NY: Charles
Scribner.
Parnes, S.J. (1992). Sourcebook for Creative Problem Solving: The
Basic Course. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Ramocki, S. P. (1994). it is time to teach creativity throughout
the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 16(2), 15-25.
Ritchey, T. (2002-2008). General Morphological Analysis: A general
model for non-quantified modeling. http://www.swemorph.com/ma.html,
accessed February 18, 2010.
Titus, P. A. (2000). Marketing and the creative problem solving
process. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 225-235.
Titus, P. A. (2007). Applied creativity : The creative marketing
breakthrough model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(3), 262-272.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought, New York, NY: Harcourt
Brace.
About The Authors:
Balkissa Sani is a native of Niger, a West African country. She
received her bachelor's degree in Economics in 2008 and her MBA in
2010 from the University of Louisiana at Monroe. She currently lives and
works in Boston, MA. Ms. Sani has been published in Information System
Journal and has also presented her work at several national conferences.
Contact: balkissa83@gmail.com
Kenneth Clow is a professor in marketing and holds the Biedenharn
Endowed Professor in Business in the College of Business Administration
at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. He graduated from the
university of Arkansas in 1992. He has also served in administrative
positions at several universities. Clow has published a total of 200
articles and textbooks. Current textbooks include the 5th edition of
Integrated Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing Communications, 3rd
edition of Essentials of Marketing, 2nd edition of Services Marketing,
and 1st edition of Marketing Management.
Thomas J. Denardin is an instructor of Management, Marketing and
General Business at the University of Louisiana, Monroe. He received his
Masters of Science in leadership from Nova South Eastern University,
Bachelor of Arts in Business Education and Marketing from Michigan State
University, and graduated from Northwestern University's Executive
Media Management School. Mr. DeNardin has owned or managed marketing for
a number of large companies. in 1996, Advertising Age named him as one
of the top 100 marketing executives in the United States.
Claire Allision Stammerjohan is an assistant professor of marketing
at University of Louisiana Monroe. She received her Ph.D. from
Mississippi State University in 2003. Stammerjohan has published in
Journal of Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, and Marketing
Management Journal as well as numerous conference presentations and
proceedings. Her research interests include applications of creativity
and innovation, and she has reviewed extensively for Journal of Product
innovation Management. Teaching interests include Marketing Research,
industrial and Services Marketing.
Balkissa Sani
Kenneth E. Clow
Thomas J. De Nardin
Claire Allison Stammerjohan
University of Louisiana Monroe
Table 1
Percentage of Course Level
Level Mean
Freshman 2.8%
Sophomore 5.2%
Junior 26.5%
Senior 36.9%
Graduate 27.0%
Table 2
Creativity in Classroom:
Frequency of use of Various Methods of Teaching Creativity
Programmed Thinking N Mean
Logic structure 351 3.96
Tables 353 2.81
Perspective 360 4.95
Matrix tables 352 2.68
Average 342 3.59
Lateral Thinking N Mean
Brainstorming ideas 361 4.65
Useful ideas 359 4.65
Games and exercises 360 4.49
Odd statements 357 3.80
Average 354 4.39
Problem Solving Technique N Mean
Problem solving 359 4.97
Role play and group 358 4.28
Continuous cycle 353 4.32
Problem definitions 355 4.37
Average 345 4.47
Artistic Creativity N Mean
Visual expression 358 4.00
Drawing 357 2.38
Self expression 354 4.58
Artistic creativity 357 2.89
Average 346 3.46
1 never, 2 very rarely, 3 rarely 4 occasionally,
5 very frequently, 6 always
Table 3
% Time Allocated to Teaching Creativity
Creativity Frequency Percentage
0-10 120 34.1%
11-20 76 21.7%
21-30 64 18.2%
31-50 57 16.3%
51-100 91 9.6%
Average= 26.0%
