Fostering Creativity Through Education: Lessons From the <scp>PISA</scp> 2022 Survey
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
ABSTRACT For the first time, the Programme on International Student Assessment (PISA) has evaluated the creative thinking skills of over 140,000 15‐year‐old students in more than 60 countries, assessing their ability to engage productively in generating, evaluating, and improving ideas. This commentary positions the recent PISA 2022 international survey results in a larger perspective of fostering creativity through education. Specifically, this commentary explores (1) which creative abilities were assessed by the PISA survey. With a clearer understanding of what was assessed, we discuss (2) the main limitation of the PISA global creative thinking score, which is to obscure the profile of strengths and weaknesses of individuals, potentially leading to inaccurate conclusions about individuals' overall abilities. Lastly, (3) we discuss the potential impact of the PISA survey and highlight aspects of creativity, such as the pursuit of personally meaningful goals and self‐expression, that may be more difficult to capture in PISA‐type measurements but that may be fundamental for the cultivation of creativity in school.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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