A Meta-Analysis Study on the Effectiveness of Creativity Approaches in Technology and Engineering Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous approaches aimed at developing creative capacities which have been proposed. These have been implemented in various fields including science, business, nursing, technology as well as engineering. This study used a quantitative method of meta-analysis to synthesize the effect of several approaches to creativity, specifically in the field of technology and engineering across educational levels. Several databases such as EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, SpringerLink, IEEE Electronic Library, Eric, and Google Scholar were searched for articles on studies about the effectiveness of approaches to creativity or issues related to the topic within a 2000-2012 timeframe. Based on 16 articles adopted, it was found that the grand mean effect size for creativity approaches is 1.02 with a standard deviation of 0.72. This study also identified seven approaches and twelve different instruments used to enhance and measure creativity in terms of product and individual creativity. The findings showed that the implemented creativity approaches have a positive effect on students’ creativity development. As such, it is recommended that further empirical research on the effect of creativity approaches be conducted, specifically in technology and engineering fields, to support these findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".