The Effect of Creative Thinking Education in Enhancing Creative Self-Efficacy and Cognitive Motivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of creative thinking education on enhancing creative self-efficacy and cognitive motivation. The sample consisted of 44 female students studying childhood education in the Princess Alia University College divided into two groups (experimental and control). The experimental group was taught a unit in creative thinking whereas the control group was not. Data were collected using two tools; first, a creative self-efficacy scale that included two dimensions (self-efficacy in creative thinking and creative performance) and second, a cognitive motivation scale that included three dimensions (curiosity, discovery, and questioning). Data showed significant differences between experimental and control groups in creative self-efficacy and its dimensions, and also in cognitive motivation and two of its dimensions (curiosity and discovery) in favor of the experimental group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in questioning. We recommend embedding creative thinking education in study courses.</p>
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it