**3. Results**

Results point out the significance ascribed to Creativity as a learning outcome. To do that, the frequency of mentions of creativity in different higher education courses in Portugal was explored.

When it has analyzed the weighting of the competences that appear as expected in the professional profile of each graduate, critical thinking is the most common learning outcome in 74.3% of the study cycles analyzed. Thus, critical thinking could be seen as the main transversal competence that the Portuguese academia intends to develop in its students. Most of the higher education offers (62.7%) tend to also value the competence to solve problem, as well as personal development (52.5%) and information management (50.1%). But, if 49.1% of all study programs mention leadership and 47.1% refer to ethics as a learning outcome expected at the end of the degree, only 46.2% raise creativity as a skill to develop. With smaller percentages, we find communication and entrepreneurship which are referred to by 46.2% and 41.2% of the courses analyzed. **Figure 1** shows the percentage of mention of each skill in all study programs.

As can be observed in **Table 1**, the Gabriel post hoc test reveals that creativity presented a lower relevance in undergraduate degrees, followed by masters' degrees. The relevance assigned by the undergraduates to this learning outcome differed significantly from the importance assigned to it in all other degrees. The same was true for masters' degrees, where significant differences were found in comparison with the other degrees. Only in the integrated masters and doctoral degrees were there no significant differences between the importance attributed to creativity as a learning outcome.

Learning outcomes associated with creativity seem to be more valued by the university subsystem, and these differences are statistically significant.

On the other hand, learning outcomes associated with creativity seem to be more valued by the university subsystem and the public sector, and these differences are statistically significant. These differences were not found regarding seniority and geographical location of the higher education institutions integrating the analyzed courses.

#### **Figure 1.**

*Percentage of mention of each skill in all study programs.*

*Can Creativity Be Taught and/or Learned? A Sketch from Higher Education Learning Outcomes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112365*


#### **Table 1.**

*Distribution of learning outcomes by academic degree.*

When analyzing the importance attributed by each scientific area to creativity as a learning outcome, interesting trends can be observed. Thus, creativity is mentioned for 30.3% of the degrees in Education, 52.2% in Arts and Architecture, 60% in Humanities, 35% in Social Sciences, 61.6% in Information and Media, 35.4% in Business Sciences, 33.3% in Law, 55.6% in Sciences, 68.6% in Engineering, 56.5% in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 21.7% in Health Sciences, and 46% in Services.

The Engineering cycles are the ones that most promote innovation and creativity as competences to be developed by their students, significantly different from Education, Arts and Architecture, Humanities, Social Sciences, Information and Journalism, Business Sciences, Law, and Agriculture. On the other hand, it is the courses in the Health area that least report innovation and creativity as an expected learning outcome. In terms of significant differences among the various scientific areas regarding the weight given to creativity in their study cycles are (i) Education in relation to Arts and Architecture, Humanities, Information and Journalism, Sciences, Agriculture and Services, (ii) Arts and Architecture in relation to Social Sciences, Business Sciences, Law and Health; (iii) the Humanities and Information and Journalism, both in relation to Business Sciences and Health; (iv) Business Sciences in relation to Agriculture and Services; (v) Law in relation to Sciences; and (vi) Sciences in relation to Agriculture and Health.
