**1. Introduction**

In a global and highly competitive context, the issue of creativity is particularly relevant. Indeed, creativity is a competitive advantage that enables both individuals and organizations to succeed in increasingly demanding markets. Therefore, the development of this competence has become central to the debate on curricula within education systems and the labor market [1]. Several authors stress the significance of promoting creativity skills in areas such as the design of new services, new technologies and production processes within organizations or in areas such as health and education [2, 3]. Montuori and Donnelly [4] identify several fields of knowledge that deal with creativity, such as psychology, sociology, but also marketing, art, or anthropology. However, the influence of creativity is not limited to the organizational dimension. At the individual level, creativity is a form of self-expression and a way of promoting engagement and a sense of accomplishment. Individual creativity is seen as a uniquely human trait that generates personal satisfaction and positive emotions [5]. Literature review suggests that creativity has an impact on individuals' quality of life, as it generates feelings of satisfaction and pleasure, which are essential for mental health and emotional well-being [6–9].

It is therefore relevant to realize the concept of creativity. Like other concepts, creativity is approached and consequently defined from different theoretical perspectives, which, when combined, allow for a more robust understanding of the concept, even if they are contested [10].

According to Sarsani [11], there is general agreement that the concept of creativity should be approached in a comprehensive manner, considering its multiple dimensions. The first allusions to the concept of creativity [12] focus on the abilities revealed by creative people. Various authors converge in defining creativity as the production of new ideas with utility or as a problem-solving proposal [13, 14].

The psychological concept of creativity identifies two components: originality, which refers to novelty and uniqueness, and usefulness, which entails suitability and adaptation to a group or culture [15, 16]. In a similar exercise, Rhodes [17] proposes a structure consisting of four components: person, product, process, and press, which are interrelated and overlapping. Thus, person reflects the characteristics that reveal creative potential; process refers to the cognitive and affective processes that drive creativity; product reflects the characteristics of the creative outcome; and press alludes to the effect of the environment and outside influences as stimulators or blockers of creativity. Amabile and Pillemer [18] understand creativity as a socio-psychological phenomenon. On an individual level, Lindqvist [19] argues that creativity is a construct of each individual imagination. However, the individual characteristics of creators are related to their culture and environment [20]. This interconnection with culture and environment reflects that, despite the individual nature of the act of creation, it takes place within a system of social relations [21]. The results of Kampylis and Valtanen [22] work show that the different definitions of creativity intersect in four elements. First, creativity is characterized as an individual talent. It also implies a conscious process that takes place in a specific environment and results in a tangible or intangible output [22]. While listing the various proposed components, Walia [23] defines creativity as an action that arises from the perception of the context, which identifies a certain imbalance that gives rise to a productive activity capable of challenging norms and thought patterns, resulting in something new that appears as a material object or a mental or emotional structure.

Over time, the limits of human potential in several fields have often been redefined by accidental conditions and creative insights. These moments of creativity have stimulated progress, reshaped our lives, and transformed the understanding of individuals, pushing the boundaries of what was once unknown as possible or not [24–26]. While creativity is influenced by the creative domain and field, individual creativity potential refers to the creative actions that individuals can perform in their everyday lives. All individuals possess this potential, as it corresponds to their ability to construct original interpretations and is identified as a non-specialized creative thinking process that does not depend on a specific domain or field. However, creative thinking is a crucial competence for all learners and therefore for education. Although creativity and innovative thinking are fundamental components of educational technology, their absence in educational curricula is a serious limitation of modern education in all academic disciplines [5, 27–32].

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

In fact, creativity becomes increasingly significant for the professional, personal, and social profile of all higher education graduates in all scientific areas. If in the Renaissance, creativity might be a luxury available to only a few, at present, it is an unavoidability for the survival off all [33]. In fact, creativity is assumed as a competence that supports not only the ability to clutch opportunities, but also to cope effectively with challenges and hitches in the personal, social, and professional fields. The advantages of creativity are recognized in the world of work, as it is considered a key competence for innovation and organizational success [3].

Sustainability is more and more linked to each country's capability to innovate, create new products and services, develop new technologies and production methods, offer products and services to new markets, and, in the global context, address the wide range of challenges in the fields of health, education and labor. [2]. Recommendations to uplifting creativity in higher education curricula from China and Japan governments, as well as by American and European business top managers [34]. In line, Lubart [35] claims that, "in respect to the capital issues, such as those of the social or planetarium equilibrium, the need of new approaches and solutions becomes increasingly urgent" (p. 8). And if creativity is accepted as a fundamental competence for success in the labor market, it should necessarily be a skill to be contemplated in the educational curriculum, with special emphasis on higher education. Particularly for Higher Education, boosting knowledge, innovation, and creativity emerges as an intentional undertaking, appealing for creative research, creative pedagogies, and creative organizational structures. Jackson [36] stresses that higher education must recognize the critical role of creativity in training youth for the unpredictable and challenging labor market. He argues that promoting creativity-related skills would be part of their higher education experience, promoting their potential as far as possible. Several researchers argue that creativity plays a central role in the knowledge society and that higher education should actively promote strategies, methods, procedures, and guidelines for the development of students' creativity [36–39]. As stressed by European University Association [40], for creativity to thrive in higher education, higher education institutions and external stakeholders need to promote purposeful and determined efforts to do so. This organization developed the Creativity in Higher Education project, involving 42 higher education institutions based in 21 different countries. This project aimed to understand and explore not only the factors promoting, but also the factors inhibiting the emergence of creativity in the context of higher education. Its approach focused on innovation in teaching and learning and the structure and leadership of higher education institutions [40]. Project findings provide strong endorsement to the idea that diversity and combination of arts and other disciplines can provide a highly favorable environment for addressing a multilayer issue such as creativity. In fact, diversity was recognized as a critical driver for strengthening creativity, whether applied to research teams, to teaching and learning methods, or to joint projects with external partners. However, scientific evidence suggests that creativity decreases with increasing years of formal education [33, 41–44]. According to these authors, dissuasion and penalization of creativity expression in higher education seem to be the reasons behind this issue. In fact, Cropley [45] presents a clear example of creativity relegation by higher education institutions. The author found that Australian universities do not provide the necessary guidance for students to master successful strategies to cope with new situations, to cope with rapid change and to address changing failures, as 75% of all recent alumni, regardless of their scientific field, were recognized by employers

as lacking creativity, problem-solving and critical and independent thinking skills. In the same vein, Jackson et al. [38] argue that the importance of creativity in the teaching and learning process has been rather undervalued, as higher education institutions tend to value skills such as critical thinking more than creativity. Also in Brazil, Castanho [42] detected the diminished importance attached to creativity in higher education curricula. In the same vein, Hosseini [46] draws attention to the faculty's difficulty in relying on educational practices that intentionally foster students' motivation and creativity.

Jackson [36] also points to the attitudes and resistance of not only faculty staff but also students themselves to pedagogical methodologies that explicitly foster creativity.

The same author identifies other potential institutional barriers to fostering creativity in higher education, such as structural, cultural and procedural factors, lack of time and other resources, or institutional policies lacking creativity promotion. Despite the recognition that the development of creative skills is an asset to graduates' personal, social, and professional profiles, creativity is very seldom embedded in higher education curricula as an overt learning outcome.

This chapter aims specifically to explore creativity as an explicit learning outcome in higher education curricula in Portugal. In other words, it aims to understand the weight of creativity in the graduate profile that higher education institutions claim to develop.
