MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082005576 · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2015.1034494

Creativity fostering teacher behaviour around the world: Annotations of studies using the CFTIndex

2015· article· en· W2082005576 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyScale (ratio)Internal consistencyReliability (semiconductor)Consistency (knowledge bases)Mathematics educationPedagogySocial psychologyPsychometricsComputer scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.347
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it