Creativity fostering teacher behaviour around the world: Annotations of studies using the CFTIndex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers play a critical role in the development of student creativity. How well they play this role depends on whether they demonstrate creativity fostering behaviour when interacting with their students. There is, however, a dearth of suitable instruments for measuring this type of teacher behaviour, although there are many instruments for measuring student creativity. Based on Arthur J. Cropley’s nine principles, the Creativity Fostering Teacher Behaviour Index (CFTIndex) was developed and trialled with a group of teachers (N = 117) in Singapore. There are evidence showing its internal consistency reliability and concurrent validity. The need for an instrument such as the CFTIndex is witnessed by many studies based using it subsequent to its first publication. The scale has since been used by researchers in America, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey and Singapore since its first appearance in the Journal of Creativity Behavior in 2000. Creativity researchers have used the CFTIndex for varied purposes, including several Ph.D. theses. This article highlights information directly related to CFTIndex to provide an integrated database and to facilitate future research. Possible further research studies using the CFTIndex are suggested and discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".