A Systematic Review: The Relationship between Learning Styles and Creative Thinking Skills
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
Creative thinking skills have become necessary and desirable competency for any professional. Learning styles are a reflection of the habitual behavior determining distinct preferences in a given learning situation. Evidence has suggested that there is a kind of relationship between these two variables. However, existing research on this has been rather minimal. It is worth noting that systematic review is used in this study for the exploration and determination of the relationship between learning styles and creative thinking skills. Five electronic databases were applied with a focus on studies that focused on the relationship between learning styles and creative thinking skills. Seven studies were finally included. Four key themes explain the results: Evolution of Creative Thinking in Academic Progress, Main Learning Styles, Learning Styles and Student Achievement, and Learning Styles and Creative Thinking Skills Correlation. The conclusion reached was comparative studies were able to illuminate on the existing relationship between learning styles and creative thinking skills. Nonetheless, more research needs to be carried out to determine the extent of this relationship or rather to enhance its significance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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