CULTIVATING CREATIVITY: ENHANCING CREATIVE CAPACITY THROUGH ONLINE MICROLEARNING
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and enhancement of creative thinking capacities is essential to marketing students’ success. But despite marketing students’ need to enhance and evidence their creative capacity skill set for the careers of the future, there exist few available models for marketing educators to introduce creative thinking skill development. This paper outlines how marketing educators can embed creative capacity skill development training in existing course designs using online masterclasses. Findings from a study of undergraduate marketing students enrolled in a pilot creative capacity development online masterclass reveal that this teaching innovation can be effectively employed to foster and enhance creative capacity skills. After participating in the embedded online masterclass, student assessments related to key creativity-development relevant learning objectives and ATTA scores both improved. This case example of microlearning and creativity focused skill development provides key insights into the ways in which we might develop the critical creative capacities of our students across disciplinary contexts using online microlearning modalities. A detailed project implementation plan and suggested model of masterclass content are provided for educators interested in helping learners develop the creative capacities they need for the careers of the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it