Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior KAY-CHENG SOH Indexing Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior: A Preliminary Validation Study 118 ABSTRACT Research on teachers’ creativity fostering behavior has been much neglected in spite of the important role teachers play in developing student creativity. One possible reason for this is the lack of a suitable measure of teachers’ creativity fostering behavior. A 45-item self-rating scale based on nine creativity fostering behaviors identified by Cropley (1997) was developed and validated with self-describing adjectives checklist. Analysis shows adequate construct and concurrent validities. Specific teachers’ creativity fostering behaviors were found to correlate with sex and ethnicity. Further work is suggested. INTRODUCTION Of the four P’s of creativity (Rhodes, 1961), much more research effort has been accorded product, person, and process but much less press. This, perhaps, is because of the all-encompassing and hence the elusiveness of the concept of environmental press needed to support development of creativity. It is a truism that the teacher plays a critical role in fostering student creativity. A teacher can directly reinforce creativity through her interaction with students by rewarding their creative efforts (process) and outcomes (product) as well as recognizing their creative traits (person). The teacher can also indirectly influence student creativity by creating a supportive social environment through her words and deeds. Thus, what the teacher does or does not do in relation to student creativity constitutes a vital factor in the social context of the classroom environment, giving rise to the needed motivation (press) to create and be creative. The teacher’s action and reaction therefore are a signal to the students regarding the acceptability of their creative efforts, outcome, Volume 34 Number 2 Second Quarter 2000 Journal of Creative Behavior Operationalizing Creativity Fostering Teacher Behaviors 119 and personal inclinations. The mechanism by which a teacher can encourage or discourage student creativity, intentionally or inadvertently, is vividly depicted by Cropley (1997) in a classroom episode of “Mr. Clever”, a grade-two boy who tried to draw the inside of a man’s head while his peers drew a conventional outside of a man’s head. This classroom incident, be it real or fictitious, aptly summarizes the probable effects of teacher behavior on student creativity on both “Mr. Clever” and his classmates. Notwithstanding the important role teachers play in fostering student creativity through their constant interaction, there was a dearth of research on teachers in their views on creativity even some ten years ago (Fryer & Collins, 1991) and a cursory look at the relevant journals shows that the situation has not changed since. If teachers’ views on creativity has been neglected in creativity research, all the more so for teachers’ creativity fostering behavior. There may be many reasons for this situation, an obvious factor causing this is the lack of a suitable measuring instrument of teachers’ creativity fostering behavior. Progress in scientific research depends on the availability of the needed measuring instruments, as exemplified by the changed concept of “length is measured by laying rods end on end” to “the meter be defined in terms of the assumed constancy in the period and wavelength of a laser” (Cliff, 1993, p. 63). In creativity research, the proliferation of research is to a large extent due to the availability of instruments purportedly measuring creativity, of which the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1990) is the archetype. Where creativity fostering behavior of teachers is concerned, the lack of suitable measuring instruments will limit the relevant discourse to the philosophical and conceptual levels (which are, of course, important in their own right as a subdomain of creativity research). But, there is also the need to empirically test out the theory, an activity that calls for adequate measurement. In this regard, the configuration of behavioral characteristics of creativity fostering teachers as proposed by Cropley (1997) is a good starting point. The present study is a humble attempt to fill this gap by constructing such an instrument and check its validity. Having discussed the various conditions and factors of student creativity, Cropley( 1997) listed the following as creativity fostering teachers’ classroom behavior: 1. Encouraging students to learn independently. Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior 2. Have a co-operative, socially integrative style of teaching. 3. Motivate their students to master factual knowledge, so that they have a solid base for divergent thinking. 4. Delay judging students’ ideas until they have been thoroughly worked out and clearly formulated. 5. Encourage flexible thinking. 6. Promote self-evaluation in students. 7. Take students’ suggestions and questions seriously. 8. Offer students opportunities to work with a wide variety of materials and under many different conditions. 9. Help students to learn to cope with frustration and failure, so that they have the courage to try the new and unusual. For each of these nine behavioral characteristics of creativity fostering teachers, five behavior manifestation statements were generated. These statements then formed the six-point frequency scales for self-report by the teachers. For instance, “I encourage students to show me what they have learned on their own,” and “I teach students the basics and leave room for individual learning” are items operationalizing the behavior of “Encouraging students to learn independently.” The 45 items thus generated were scrutinized by 20 graduate students who are experienced teachers attending the present author’s graduate seminars on the psychology of creativity. They evaluated the items for relevance and classification, in addition to editing the language and expression. The 45-item questionnaire as a whole is titled Creativity Fostering Teacher Index (CFTIndex) with suitable titles reflecting the nature of each of the nine constituent scales. The questionnaire can be found in the Appendix. DATA COLLECTION 120 The CFTIndex was responded to by 117 teachers contacted through the graduate students from a wide range of primary and secondary schools and junior colleges. As shown in Table 1, three-quarters of the respondents are female, and about 60% are 35 or younger. Slightly more than half of the respondents are ethnic Chinese while the rest are Malay, Indian, Eurasian and other races. About 60% of the respondents hold a university degree and there is an almost equal split in terms of level of teaching. While about 60% teach languages, the remaining 40% are equally divided into science (and mathematics) and humanities. As participation in this study was voluntary, the respondents formed a convenient sample and no claim of representation of the teacher population of Singapore is made. Journal of Creative Behavior TABLE 1. The Respondents Percentages (N=117) Factor-Analysis of the Scales Reliabilities and Inter-correlations 121 Sex Male Female 25.6 74.4 Age 20-25 26-30 31-35 36 and above 10.3 29.9 17.9 41.9 Race Chinese Malay Indian Eurasian and others 55.6 21.4 17.9 5.1 Qualification Degree Non-degree 61.5 38.5 Level Primary Secondary 53.8 46.2 Subject Language Science, Mathematics Humanities and others 62.4 19.7 17.9 In the questionnaire formed by the nine scales, one item of one scale is followed by one item from the next scale and so on. This was to avoid probable response set within each set of items for the same creativity fostering behavior. In order that each set of five items will form a self-contained scale focusing on one of the nine creativity fostering behaviors, responses to each set were analyzed independent of the other sets, instead of submitting responses for 45 items all at once for factor analysis as is usually done for scale development. The resultant scales will yield more information for diagnosis purposes. When factor analysis with varimax rotation was run separately for each set of five items, one factor was obtained (and hence, not rotated). As shown in Table 2, all items loaded sizably onto its respective creativity fostering behavior and the percentage of total variance explained vary from 47% (Evaluation) to 65% (Frustration). With the nine scales thus formed, their reliabilities and intercorrelations were studied. As Table 3 shows, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients vary from a moderate .69 for Evaluation Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior TABLE 2. Factor-Analysis Results of the CFTIndex Scales Scales and items Factor loadings Dependence (51.77% total variance explained) 1. Encourage students to show what they have learned on their own. .52 2. Teach students the basics and leave them to find out more. .76 3. Leave questions for students to find out for themselves. .78 4. Teach students the basics and leave room for individual learning. .75 5. Leave open-ended questions for my students to find the answers .78 Integration (63.54% total variance explained) 1. Students have opportunities to share ideas and views .81 2. Students have opportunities to do group work. .84 3. Students are encouraged to contribute to the lesson. .78 4. Encourage students to ask questions and make suggestions. .77 5. Students are expected to work in group co-operatively. .78 Motivation (51.73% total variance explained) 122 1. Learning the basic knowledge/skills well is emphasized. .76 2. Emphasize the importance of mastering the essentials. .81 3. Expect students to learn the basic knowledge/skills well. .77 4. Moving to the next topic quickly is not main concern. .57 5. Covering the syllabus is not more important than student learning. .66 Journal of Creative Behavior TABLE 2. Continued Factor-Analysis Results of the CFTIndex Scales Scales and items Factor loadings Judgment (59.99% total variance explained) 1. Get students to explore their ideas before taking a stand. .74 2. Follow up students’ questions with questions to make them think. .78 3. Do not give own view immediately on students’ ideas. .79 4. Comments on students’ ideas only after more thoroughly exploration. .82 5. Encourage students to do things differently although this takes time. .72 Flexibility (56.60% total variance explained) 1. Probe students’ ideas to encourage thinking. .83 2. Encourage students to ask questions freely. .81 3. Encourage students to think in different directions .75 4. Like students to take time to think in different ways. .81 5. Allow students to deviate from what they are told to do. .53 Evaluation (47.19% total variance explained) 123 1. Expect students to check their own work. .77 2. Provide opportunities for students to share strengths and weaknesses.. .69 3. Students to check their own work before the teacher does. .78 4. Students have opportunities to judge for themselves. .74 5. Allow students to show one another their work before submission .37 Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior TABLE 2. Continued Factor-Analysis Results of the CFTIndex Scales Scales and items Factor loadings Question (59.49% total variance explained) 1. Follow up on students’ suggestions. .72 2. Listen to students’ questions carefully. .85 3. Don’t dismiss students’ suggestions lightly. .73 4. Listen to students’ suggestions even if they are not practical. .89 5. Listen patiently when students ask questions that may sound silly. .64 Opportunities (59.75% total variance explained) 1. Encourage students to try out what they have learned .77 2. Appreciate students’ putting what they have learned into different uses. .73 3. Encouraged students to do different things with what they have learned. .85 4. Don’t mind students trying out their own ideas and deviating. .79 5. Allow students to go beyond what I teach them. .73 Frustration (65.00% total variance explained) 124 1. Students who are frustrated can come for emotional support. .67 2. Help students who experienced failure to regain confidence. .83 3. Help students to draw lessons from their own failures. .84 4. Encourage students to take frustration as part of the learning process. .82 5. Encourage students who experienced failure to find other solutions. .86 Journal of Creative Behavior TABLE 3. Inter-correlations among Scales Cronbach’s1 alpha 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Independence Integration Motivation Judgment Flexibility Evaluation Question Opportunities Frustration .76 .85 .74 .83 .78 .69 .82 .83 .86 – .62 .49 .70 .58 .60 .52 .65 .65 2 3 4 – .56 .71 .71 .68 .67 .71 .65 – .59 .55 .55 .48 .59 .57 – .78 .69 .76 .69 .46 5 6 7 8 9 – .72 – .80 67 – .82 .70 .80 – .66 .65 .70 .75 – Note: All correlation coefficients significant p < 0.01. Scale to a high .86 for Frustration Scale. The median of reliabilities is .82. And, the correlations vary from a moderate .49 (between Independence and Motivation) to a high .82 (between Flexibility and Opportunities). The median of correlations is .67. Thus, in addition to being highly reliable, the moderate inter-correlations indicate that the scales are reasonably independent of one another while still measuring something in common. While the nine scales provide specific information for each of the nine creativity fostering behaviors, the inter-correlations suggest a general factor, although the nine characteristics are supposedly discrete. It is also useful for evaluation and research purposes to obtain an overall index of teachers’ creativity fostering behavior. Such a score would enable a more parsimonious interpretation of the relevant behavior. For this, the nine scale scores were submitted for factor analysis with varimax rotation. As shown in Table 4, the analysis yielded only one factor which explains 69.95% of the total variance. Table 4 also sets out the correlations of CFTIndex with the nine scale. Not unexpectedly, the correlations are general high, varying from .71 (Motivation) to .90 (Opportunities), and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for CFTIndex is a high .96. PRELIMINARY VALIDATION 125 While the CFTIndex and the nine scales show high reliabilities and also construct and convergent validities, the value of the instrument needs be supported by other forms of validity evidence. Although behavioral and performance evidence were Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior TABLE 4. Results of Factor-Analyzing the Scales Factor loadings Independence Integration Motivation Judgment Flexibility Evaluation Question Opportunities Frustration .77 .84 .70 .88 .88 .84 .85 .91 .84 Correlations with CFTIndex .77 .85 .71 .88 .88 .84 .84 .90 .84 Note: All correlation coefficients significant p < 0.01. This factor explains 95% total variance and the scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .96 considered, it was decided that at this early stage of scale development, concurrent validity serves the purpose sufficiently well. For this, Domino’s (1970) Creativity Scale for the identification of potentially creative persons was adapted. Domino’s (1970) Creativity Scale is, in fact, the scoring key for Gough’s (1952) Adjective Check List which consists of 300 adjectives. A creativity score is derived by counting the number of the 59 adjectives, identified by Domino for the creativity scoring key, checked by the respondent (Davies, 1991). For the present study, the adjectives were presented in the form of six-point scale as The Person I Am, instead of a Yes/No checking. This allows for more variance to be captured so that factor analysis could be run to study the inherent structure of the list of adjectives. Five rounds of factor analysis with varimax rotation were run on the responses. Following the scree-plots, only the first factor was retained for further analysis, as there was a big drop in the variance explained in each round. For instance, the first round of the analysis yielded 13 factors with eigen values greater than unity, with the first factor explaining 27.65% of the total variance, the second 15.53%, and the third 4.32%, and so on. The first factor was loaded by 33 of the adjectives and was hence submitted for further analysis. The fifth round of analysis yielded two factors explaining 59.68% and 5.90% of the total variance of 17 items. The com- 126 Journal of Creative Behavior TABLE 5. Factor Analysis Results of Adjectives Scale Adjectives Alert Capable Clear-thinking Confident Curious Energetic Enthusiastic Independent Industrious Factor loadings .519 .526 .488 .709 .739 .616 .618 .546 .576 Adjectives Factor loadings Ingenious .817 Insightful .679 Intelligent .628 Interests wide .742 Logical .305 Original .703 Resourceful .715 % variance 59.68 Cronbach’a alpha .96 ponent matrix shows one item not loading on the first factor at all, while the other 16 items have factor loadings varying from .31 to .82. These adjectives were used to form a creativity scale which has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .96 (Table 5). Inspection of Table 5 shows adjectives with higher loadings are those having to do with creativity such as ingenious, interests wide, curious, resourceful, confident, original, insightful, and independent, although the factor includes adjectives that are more cognitive in nature (e.g., intelligent, capable, clear-thinking, and logical) and a few more attitudinal in nature (e.g., enthusiastic, energetic, industrious, and alert). Comparisons were made between the correlations of the first version (33 items) of the Adjectives scale with the nine scales and the CFTIndex and those with the final version (16 items). As shown in Table 6, the longer version show higher correlations for six scales and the shorter version for three scales. And, the correlation with CFTIndex is higher for the shorter version. It is interesting to note that all differences are in the second decimals. The differences in correlations were tested by the procedure recommended by Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin (1992) and were found to be not significant. Moreover, the two versions of the adjective scale have a correlation of .97. Thus, a 16-item self-rating scale of creativity has been successfully constructed which is not only concise but also have meaningful correlations with the scales measuring creativity fostering behavior of teachers. 127 Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior TABLE 6. Correlations between CFT Index Scales and Adjectives Scale CFTI Scales r’s with r’s with Adjectives Scale Adjectives Scale (33 items) (16 items) Z 1. Independence .42 .39 .97 2. Integration .43 .45 .70 3. Motivation .33 .35 1.12 4. Judgment .46 .44 .81 5. Flexibility .41 .40 .30 6. Evaluation .26 .25 .40 7. Question .32 .33 .54 8. Opportunities .39 .36 1.18 9. Frustration .42 .40 .94 .42 .45 1.48 10. CFTIndex Note: All correlation coefficients are significant p < 0.01. Comparisons be Sex and Race 128 Having had the CFTIndex and the nine scales correlated with the Adjectives Scale, comparisons were made in terms of the respondents’ demographic variables, i.e., sex, age, race, qualification, level of teaching, specialization, and years of teaching experience. Comparisons were first made on CFTIndex and then, where a significant difference resulted, on the nine constituent scales. Since differences in CFTIndex were significant only for sex and race, further comparisons on the nine scales were run only for these two demographic variables. The results are shown in Tables 7 and 8. As shown in Table 7, male respondents scored significantly lower than did female respondents on CFTIndex. When MANOVA was run, a Wilk’s Lamda of .85 (F = 2.11, df 9, 107, p = .04) was obtained indicating an overall difference for the nine scales taken together. Significant univariate F’s were obtained for Independence, Motivation, Opportunities, and Frustration, all in favor of females. Effects sizes were estimated by arbitrarily designating Male as the ’control’ group. There is for CFTIndex an effect size of .53 which by Cohen’s (1988) criterion is medium in magnitude. Of the nine scales, a large effect size was obtained for Motivation(.93) and a small effect size for Question(.25) and Flexibility (.14), while all other scale have medium effect sizes ranging between .36 to .55. Journal of Creative Behavior TABLE 7. Comparisons by Sex M Male SD Female M SD F 199.17 24.26 211.91 28.23 4.87 .03 .53 Independence 20.53 3.59 22.24 3.41 5.45 .02 .48 Integration 23.33 3.47 24.54 4.14 2.05 .16 .36 Motivation 22.46 2.53 24.82 3.47 11.62 .00 .93 Judgment 21.40 3.42 22.67 4.09 2.31 .13 .37 Flexibility 22.13 3.81 22.66 4.00 .37 .53 .14 Evaluation 21.47 3.31 22.86 3.67 3.39 .07 .42 Question 23.07 3.35 23.91 3.44 1.35 .25 .25 Opportunities 22.53 3.29 24.09 3.57 4.43 .04 .47 Frustration 22.23 3.47 24.13 3.74 5.93 .02 .55 CFTIndex TABLE 8. p ES Comparisons by Race Chinese M SD CFTIndex Non-Chinese M SD F p ES 203.26 28.08 215.37 26.01 5.73 .02 .43 Independence 21.43 3.21 22.27 3.86 1.65 .20 .26 Integration 23.52 4.32 25.12 3.39 4.73 .03 .37 Motivation 23.85 3.12 24.67 3.70 1.719 .19 .26 Judgment 21.69 4.05 23.15 3.72 4.41 .05 .36 Flexibility 21.77 4.23 23.46 3.36 5.53 .02 .40 Evaluation 22.09 3.75 23.02 3.40 1.20 .17 .25 Question 22.88 3.56 24.71 2.99 8.85 .00 .51 Opportunities 23.00 3.47 24.56 3.47 5.80 .02 .45 Frustration 3.63 24.40 3.79 3.97 .05 .38 23.03 Table 8 show the results of comparisons by race. Chinese scored significantly lower than did Non-Chinese (including Malay, Indian, Eurasians and others) respondents on CFTIndex. The Wilk’s Lamda of .92 (F = 1.05, df 9,107, p = 0.41) obtained indicates an absence of overall difference when the nine scales 129 Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior were considered together. However, significant univariate F’s were obtained for Integration, Judgment, Flexibility, Question, Opportunities, and Frustration, all in favor of Non-Chinese. When Chinese was designated as the ‘control’ group, there is a medium effect size of 0.43 for CFTIndex. Of the nine scales, Independence, Motivation, and Evaluation have small effect sizes around .25 and the other scales have effect sizes varying from .36 to .51. FURTHER WORK 130 The need to study teachers’ creativity fostering behavior cannot be over-emphasized in view of the teachers’ conscious and unintentional influences on the development of student creativity during their daily interaction with the young in the classroom. While creativity researchers, especially those of us who have an interest in issues related to education in general and teacher education in particular, will not disagree that there remains a gap of empirically validated knowledge of creativity fostering behavior of teachers, although there is no dearth of discussion in this regard. One possible reason for this is the obvious absence of suitable measuring instruments for gauging teachers’ creativity fostering behavior in the classroom context, as progress in research is contingent on measurement. The present study is a preliminary attempt to meet this measurement need by developing and then validating the CFTIndex scales, with the hope that more empirical work of this nature will be taken up by interested creativity researchers. This attempt could be deemed reasonably successful to the extent that the structure of the scales is consistent with the various teacher behavior believed to be creativity fostering (Cropley, 1997) and to the extent that self-ratings by teachers on the scales are meaningfully correlated with their self-description of creative personality. However, it is obvious that more work needs be done to further evaluate the validity and usefulness of data collected with the CFTIndex scales and to enhance our standing of creative fostering behavior of teachers. Since, at this stage of its development, the CFTIndex provides only subjective self-report data of the teachers, the validity of such data need be further evaluated. Some of the possible approaches include (a) checking with ratings on teacher behavior given by students who are at the receiving end of classroom interaction; (b) checking against objective measures by independent observers who may be a fellow-teacher, supervisor, or creativity researcher; (c) check Journal of Creative Behavior whether teachers who show more creativity fostering behavior have students who show higher level of creativity in the natural classroom setup. Experimental studies could also be mounted to find out (a) whether creativity fostering behavior can be trained and, perhaps more importantly, (b) whether students become more creative when teachers change their creativity fostering behavior. The findings that certain creativity fostering behaviors are correlated with sex and ethnicity also warrant further investigation, especially the latter in view of the recent interest in the cultural influence on creativity (e.g., Gardner, 1997; Soh, 1999) Obviously, much more work is needed to establish a definitive link between teachers’ creativity fostering behavior and student creativity as is assumed by discourse hitherto. REFERENCES CLIFF, N. (1993) What is and isn’t measurement. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.). A Handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues, (pp.59-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. COHEN, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CROPLEY, A. J. (1997) Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco. (Ed.) Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83-114). Cresskill, N. J.: Hampton Press, 83-114. DAVIES, G. A. (1991) Creativity is forever, 3rd Ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishers. DOMINO, G. (1970) Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48-51. FRYER, M. & COLLINS, J. R. (1991) British teachers’ views of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 75-81. GARDNER, H. (1997) The key in the key slot: Creativity in a Chinese key. Journal of Creative Education, 6, 15-36. GOUGH, G. (1952) Adjective Check List. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists’ Press. MENG, X., ROSENTHAL, R. & RUBIN, D. B. (1992) Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175. RHODES, M. (1987) An analysis of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.) Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics (pp. 216-222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. SOH K. C. (1999) East-west difference in views on creativity: Is Howard Gardner correct? Yes, and no. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 112-123. TORRANCE, E. P. (1990) Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Beaconville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services. Soh Kay Cheng, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 469 Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 289 756. E-mail: [email protected] 131 Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior APPENDIX Your Teaching Style Different teachers have different teaching styles. They also handle students’ ideas and learning problems differently. What, then, is your style? Please read each statement below and circle one of the six codes to indicate how often you do it. All the time 6 5 4 3 2 1 Never 1. I encourage students to show me what they have learned on their own. 654321 2. In my class, students have opportunities to share ideas and views. 654321 3. Learning the basic knowledge/skills well is emphasized in my class. 654321 4. When my students have some ideas, I get them to explore further before I take a stand. 6 5 4 3 2 1 5. In my class, I probe students’ ideas to encourage thinking. 654321 6. I expect my students to check their own work instead of waiting for me to correct them. 654321 7. I follow up on my students’ suggestions so that they know I take them seriously. 654321 8. I encourage my students to try out what they have learned from me in different situations . 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. My students who are frustrated can come to me for emotional support. 654321 10. I teach my students the basics and leave them to find out more for themselves. 654321 11. Students in my class have opportunities to do group work regularly. 654321 12. I emphasize the importance of mastering the essential knowledge and skills. 654321 13. When my students suggest something, I follow it up with questions to make them think further. 654321 14. I encourage my students to ask questions freely even if they appear irrelevant. 654321 15. I provide opportunities for my students to share their strong and weak points with the class. 654321 16. When my students have questions to ask, I listen to them carefully. 654321 132 Journal of Creative Behavior 17. When my students put what they have learnt into different uses, I appreciate them. 18. I help students who experienced failure to cope with it so that they regain their confidence. 19. I leave questions for my students to find out for themselves. 20. Students in my class are encouraged to contribute to the lesson with their ideas and suggestions. 21. My students know that I expect them to learn the basic knowledge and skills well. 22. I do not give my view immediately on students’ ideas, whether I agree or disagree with them. 23. I encourage my students to think in different directions even if some of the ideas may not work. 24. My students know that I expect them to check their own work before I do. 25. My students know I do not dismiss their suggestions lightly. 26. My students are encouraged to do different things with what they have learned in class. 27. I help my students to draw lessons from their own failures. 28. I teach students the basics and leave room for individual learning. 29. I encourage students to ask questions and make suggestions in my class. 30. Moving from one topic to the next quickly is not my main concern in class. 31. I comments on students’ ideas only after they have been more thoroughly explored. 32. I like my students to take time to think in different ways. 33. In my class, students have opportunities to judge for themselves whether they are right or wrong. 133 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 654321 Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior 34. I listen to my students’ suggestions even if they are not practical or useful. 654321 35. I don’t mind my students trying out their own ideas and deviating from what I have shown them. 654321 36. I encourage students who have frustration to take it as part of the learning process. 654321 37. I leave open-ended questions for my students to find the answers for themselves. 6 5 4 3 2 1 38. Students in my class are expected to work in group co-operatively. 654321 39. Covering the syllabus is not more important to me than making sure the students learn the basics well. 654321 40. I encourage students to do things differently although doing this takes up more time. 654321 41. I allow students to deviate from what they are told to do. 654321 42. I allow my students to show one another their work before submission. 654321 43. I listen patiently when my students ask questions that may sound silly. 654321 44. Students are allowed to go beyond what I teach them within my subject. 654321 45. I encourage students who experienced failure to find other possible solutions. 654321 Thank you for your kind co-operation. 134