Identifying the Extent of Using Methods for Developing Students’ Creative Thinking by the Upper Primary Teachers in Public Schools in Tulkarem & Irbid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to identify the extent of using methods for developing students’ creative thinking by the upper primary teachers in public schools in Tulkarem & Irbid. The researchers aimed to identify that from the students’ perspective. In order to meet the study’s goals, a questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire consists from 34 statements. It was designed for identifying the extent of using methods for developing students’ creative thinking by the upper primary teachers. It sheds a light on several creative thinking development methods. The psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the questionnaire were identified. A sample of students was selected. It consists from 442 female and male students. The sampled students were selected from the upper primary stage (i.e. the seventh, eighth and ninth grades).  The sample was selected through using the random stratified sampling method in accordance with gender, grade, and city. The researchers concluded the following results: The upper primary teachers highly use methods for developing students’ creative thinking in the public schools in Tulkarem & Irbid The methods that are used  the most by upper primary teachers for developing students’ creative thinking in the public schools in Tulkarem & Irbid are represented in the following: The teacher accepts the students’ questions -that are not related to the subject -in the academic setting The teacher assigns enrichment activities to students in order to develop their creative thinking The teacher encourages students to come up with new ideas in the academic setting The teacher encourages students to show perseverance. He seeks encouraging students to engage in positive competitions The teacher introduces a new subject in an academic setting through asking questions that develop students’ higher order thinking skills *(These items are arranged descendingly) The methods that are used the least by upper primary teachers for developing students’ creative thinking in the public schools in Tulkarem & Irbid are represented in the following: The teacher allocates opportunities to students equally in the academic setting in order to reach results The teacher runs the discussion in the classroom effectively The teacher uses the cooperative learning method The teacher asks probing questions which require thinking deeply The teacher displays the academic content in an unconventional manner *(These items are arranged descendingly) There isn’t any statistically significant difference between the respondents’ views which can be attributed    to gender, grade, or city. In the light of the aforementioned results, the researchers suggest several recommendations. For instance, they recommend providing teachers with training programs that enable them to use innovative methods when dealing with creative students. They also recommend conducting other studies that shed a light on the development of students’ creative thinking with surveying the views of other categories of people.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".