Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great part of creative activities arises from the interactions between individuals and their socio-cultural environments. The aim of this article is to explore the relationship between EFL learners’ creativity and their social and cultural capital. To this end, the Social and Cultural Capital Questionnaire (SCCQ) and the Arjmand Creativity Questionnaire (ACQ) were administered to a sample of 320 undergraduate students majoring in English language so that the researchers could examine the best predictors of creativity in terms of five factors of the SCCQ, namely, social competence, social solidarity, literacy, cultural competence, and extraversion. Results from Pearson product-moment correlation showed highly significant correlations between all five factors of SCCQ and learners’ creativity. Moreover, results from the regression analysis revealed that a combination of cultural competence and social solidarity was the best predictor of creativity by explaining 25% of the variances in EFL learners’ creativity scores. The implications of the study are discussed. Key words: Creativity; EFL context; Artifacts; Social interactionsResume: Une grande partie des activites creatives resultent de l'interaction entre les individus et leur environnement socio-culturel. Le but de cet article est d'explorer la relation entre la creativite des apprenants ALE (Anglais langue etrangere) et leur capital social et culturel. A cette fin, un Questionnaire de capital social et culturel (QCSC) et un Questionnaire de creativite d’Arjmand (QCA) ont ete donnes a un echantillon de 320 etudiants de specialite Anglais en premier cycle afin que les chercheurs puissent examiner les meilleurs predicteurs de la creativite en termes des cinq facteurs de la QCSC, a savoir la competence sociale, la solidarite sociale, l'education, la competence culturelle et l'extraversion. Les resultats de la correlation produit-moment de Pearson ont montre des correlations tres significatives entre les cinq facteurs de QCSC et la creativite des apprenants. En outre, les resultats de l'analyse de regression ont revele que la combinaison de la competence culturelle et la solidarite sociale a ete le meilleur predicteur de la creativite en expliquant 25% de la variance dans les notes de la creativite des apprenants ALE. Les implications de l'etude sont discutees. Mots cles: Creativite; Contexte ALE; Artefacts; Interactions sociales
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".