Studying the Association between Thinking Styles and Creativity among Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Developing thinking skills has been receiving considerable attention in educational systems. Students are taught how to use the power of thinking to live a better life. Understanding and utilizing ways of thinking as a preferred approach of reasoning, assessment, and judgment in different aspects of life seem to be influential. This paper aims to study the relationship between viewpoints and creativity in students of Torbat Heidariyeh University of Medical Sciences in 2015.Methods: Sternberg Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory and Abedi Creativity Questionnaire were used to collect the data among students. 13 styles of thinking were studied. Data was analyzed by SPSS20. P<0.05 considered significant.Findings: The mean score of students’ creativity was 97.88±19.17. The highest (24.96±2.43) and lowest (14.11±1.16) mean score belonged to anarchic and legislative styles of thinking respectively. Our findings indicate that local (r=-0.176) and conservative (r=-0.701) forms of thinking are negatively related to creativity. In addition, legislative (r=0.512), global (r=0.634), liberal(r=0.653), hierarchical (r=0.181), anarchic (r=0.356), internal (r=0.198), and external (r=0.189) styles of thinking were positively related to creativity. With respect to legislative (r=0.045), judicial (r=0.23), conservative (r=0.009), and external (r=0.001) styles, no significant difference was observed between male and female students.Conclusion: It is imperative to pay considerable attention to thinking styles and their influence on students’ creativity. As thinking styles are teachable, the hope is that those styles of thinking that create active learning and facilitate creativity in students be taught to learners and teachers.Keywords: creativity, thinking styles, students
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".