Pedagogical Conditions for the Effective Formation of Creative Thinking of Art Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essence of the concept "creative thinking" is considered, and its working definition is formulated. Special attention is given to the identification of pedagogical foundations of future teachers' creative thinking development, which accounting will promote the increase of the efficiency of the considered process. Future teachers' creative thinking development is advantageously realized in the course of students’ vocational training, during which it is necessary to rely not only on mental development regularities knowledge (theoretical thinking, creative thinking peculiarities, sustained attention, imagination, and integration of memory) and students' individual characteristics (maturity of motivation to creative activities, the maturity of speech, volitional powers) but also on the competently organized didactic process (training to work with the concepts and their use, application of the system of creative tasks, developing the ability to overcome intellectual difficulties). Results of students’ activity studying on the basis of creative tasks have shown that creative thinking skills development depends on the students' thinking orientation in the processing of the received educational information; Also, creative thinking skills development depends on students' subjective attitude towards tasks, that is going to be helpful them during the educational process. This study aims to examine the essence of the concept of "creative thinking" and identify pedagogical foundations for its development in future teachers. The following methods of scientific and pedagogical research are used to achieve the objectives: the methods of theoretical research: the analysis of psychological and educational literature; methods of empirical research: students' activity products' studying, observation, conversation, pedagogical experiment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".