Design Thinking as an Innovative Method of Formation of Creativity Skills in Students of Higher Education
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
Analysis of design thinking as an innovative method of forming creative skills in students is the goal of the investigation. To write the article, general scientific methods were applied. From the theoretical pedagogical methods, we highlight the approaches of concretization, generalization and abstraction. In particular, the terminological discussions regarding the concept of design thinking are defined in the results. Also in the results it is shown the connections between the development of creativity and employment; the features of the stages of its use in the education process, the role of design thinking in the formation of creativity are elaborated. In our opinion, design thinking is a principle of joint research that influences the formation of innovative team solutions and the solution of complex problems. It is concluded, that the following criteria of design thinking are the main ones: focus on cooperation, participation, anthropology and conducting experiments. Usually in pedagogy, a certain division into stages is used in the use of design thinking: empathy, focus, generation of ideas, prototyping, testing. Modern top managers recognize that the fascination with the creative component harms production processes.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 | 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