SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 3

Comparison of creativity and critical thinking among female students of selective and public high schools

Seçmeli ve normal devlet liselerindeki kız öğrencilerin yaratıcılık ve eleştirel düşünme özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması

Mahsa Vaheddoost(MUDANYA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5551-0401
Marzieh Arefi(Azar Abadegan)0009-0005-8496-971X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-05-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed that there is a significant difference between SHS and PHS groups (fluidity, expansion, initiative, and flexibility).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study is conducted to provide comparison between female students of selective and public high schools (PHS) in Urmia city in Iran, using creativity and critical thinking measures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Statistical randomized-sampling technique is used in selection of 90 students from one selective high school (SHS) and 260 students from three PHS.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed that there is a significant difference between SHS and PHS groups (fluidity, expansion, initiative, and flexibility).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Critical thinking · creativity · female students

Abstract

Aims: This study is conducted to provide comparison between female students of selective and public high schools (PHS) in Urmia city in Iran, using creativity and critical thinking measures. Methods: Statistical randomized-sampling technique is used in selection of 90 students from one selective high school (SHS) and 260 students from three PHS. The Torrance creativity and California critical thinking inventories were used for data collection. Results: A causal-comparative strategy is used in the analysis, while one-way ANOVA test and T test between independent groups were used to test the hypothesis regarding the difference between students in SHS and PHS. Results showed that there is a significant difference between SHS and PHS groups (fluidity, expansion, initiative, and flexibility). Conclusion: It is concluded that while considering the critical thinking, no significant difference exists between the components of deductive and inductive analysis. But, differences between selected groups was observed when considering the analysis and inference components. According to the results obtained for creativity, a meaningful relationship between all of the elements in both of the selected groups with p<0.001 is observed.

Özet

Bu çalışma, yaratıcılık ve eleştirel düşünme ölçütlerini kullanarak İran'ın Urmiye Şehrindeki seçmeli ve devlet liselerindeki kız öğrenciler arasında karşılaştırma yapmak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bir Seçmeli Liseden (SHS) 90 öğrencinin ve üç Devlet Lisesinden (PHS) 260 öğrencinin seçiminde istatistiksel rastgele örnekleme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Veri toplamak için Torrance yaratıcılık ve California eleştirel düşünme envanterleri kullanıldı. Daha sonra analizde nedensel karşılaştırma stratejisi kullanılmış, SHS ve PHS öğrencileri arasındaki farka ilişkin hipotezi test etmek için tek yönlü ANOVA testi ve bağımsız gruplar arası t testi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar SHS ve PHS grupları arasında (akışkanlık, genişleme, inisiyatif ve esneklik) anlamlı bir fark olduğunu gösterdi. Dolayısıyla eleştirel düşünme dikkate alındığında tümdengelimli ve tümevarımsal analizin bileşenleri arasında anlamlı bir fark olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Ancak analiz ve çıkarım bileşenleri dikkate alındığında seçilen gruplar arasında farklılıklar gözlendi. Yaratıcılık için elde edilen sonuçlara göre seçilen her iki grupta da tüm unsurlar arasında p<0,001 ile anlamlı bir ilişki görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Vaheddoost, M., Arefi, M. (2025). Comparison of creativity and critical thinking among female students of selective and public high schools. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 8 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1627314

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Andiyana MA, Maya R, Hidayat W. Analysis of mathematical creative thinking ability of MTs students on circle material. J Mathemat Edu Study Program. 2018;1(3):239-248.
  2. Larasati N, Santosa S, Sari DP. The Influence of Cooperative Learning Model of Group Investigation Type Combined Concept Map to Student’ s Creative Thinking S. Proceeding Biology Education Conference 2018, Indonesia; P-ISSN: 2528-5742, 15:130-137.
  3. Juliantine T. The development of student creativity through the implementation of the inquiry learning model in physical education. Res Edu. 2009:163. doi:10.52547/aassjournal.1121
  4. Amabile TM. Componential theory of creativity. Working paper-12096, 2012; Harvard Business School, US.
  5. Girgin D, Akcanca N. An innovative learning approach in education: collaborative creativity model. Trakya Uni J Soc Sci. 2021;23(1):367-391. doi:10.26468/trakyasobed.753592
  6. Matraeva AD, Rybakova MV, Vinichenko MV, Oseev AA, Ljapunova NV. Development of creativity of students in higher educational institutions: assesment of students and experts. Uni J Edu Res. 2020;8(1): 8-16. doi:10.13189/ujer.2020.080102
  7. Gülel G. Investigation of creativity levels of prospective form teachers based on some variables. Master’s thesis, 2005; Pamukkale University, Turkey. (In Turkish)
  8. Kanli E. Investigating the relations between scientific creativity, gender and scientific attitudes of gifted learners. Elementary Edu Online. 2017;16(4):1792-1802. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2017.342992
  9. Agnoli S, Zanon M, Mastria S, Avenanti A, Corazza GE. Enhancing creative cognition with a rapid right-parietal neurofeedback procedure. Neuropsychologia. 2018;118(Pt A):99-106. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.015
  10. Gralewski J, Karwowski M. Are teachers’ implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students’ creativity? J Creat Behav. 2018;52(2):156-167. doi:10.1002/jocb.140
  11. Lipman M. Thinking in education. 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003.
  12. Santrock JW. Child development. New York: McGraw-Hill 2007. pp: 213.
  13. Brodin EM, Frick L. Conceptualizing and encouraging critical creativity in doctoral education. Int J Res Develop. 2011;2(2):133-151. doi:10.1108/17597511111212727
  14. Adriansen HK. How criticality affects students’ creativity? In C. Nygaard, N. Courtney & C. Holtham (Eds.), Teaching creativity; Libri Publishing: Oxfordshire, 2010; pp. 65-84.
  15. Saputro AD, Atun S, Wilujeng I, Ariyanto A, Arifin S. Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy and critical thinking using problem-based learning. Eur J Edu Res. 2020;9(2):765-773. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.765
  16. Paul R, Elder L. Critical Thinking Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Prentice Hall Publishing, 2006; New Jersey, US. ISBN: 1538138743.
  17. Marzano RJ. Dimensions of thinking: a framework for curriculum and instruction. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 125 N. West St., Alexandria, 1988; VA 22314-2798.
  18. Torrance EP. Growing up creatively gifted: the 22-year longitudinal study. Creat Child Adult Quarterly. 1980;5(3):148-158.
  19. Torrance EP. Predicting the creativity of elementary school children and the teacher who made a difference. Gifted Child Quarterly. 1981;25:55-62. doi:10.1177/001698628102500203
  20. Torrance EP. Empirical validation of criterion referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creat Child Adult Quarterly. 1981;6(3):136-140.
  21. Abedi J. Creativity and new methods in measuring it. J Psychol Res. 1994;1:2. (In Farsi)
  22. Facione PA, Facione NC, Blohm KH, Carol AF. Test manual: the California critical thinking skills test. Revised edition. California Academic Press, 1998; Millbrae, USA.
  23. Eslami M. Providing a model for designing the implementation of a critical reading program and its effect on critical thinking and analytical writing of Tehran teacher training students. PhD Thesis in Curriculum Planning, 2004; University of Tehran, Iran (In Farsi).
  24. Bigdeli H. Investigating the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Self-Esteem and Academic Achievement in Undergraduate Students of Humanities and Engineering, University of Tehran. Master Thesis in Educational Research, 2006; University of Tehran, Iran (in Farsi).
  25. Chan DW. Self-perceived creativity, Family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. J Second Gift Edu. 2005;16(2-3):47-56. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-4
  26. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98-104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 78.1.98
  27. Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol Assess. 1996; 8(4):350-353. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
  28. Alborzi S, Ostovar S. Thinking styles of gifted and non-gifted students in Iran. Psychol Rep. 2007;100:1076-1082. (in Farsi)
  29. Ghasemi F, Oghlidos T. Investigating the effect of teaching the course “fostering creativity in children” on increasing the creativity of female students in the third year of childcare in Shiraz vocational high school. Quarter J Edu Innovat. 2006;4(13):58-84. (in Farsi)
  30. Mohseni K, Azizmalayeri K, Omidi M. Comparison of creativity and critical thinking of smart and normal students, 7th International Conference on Science and Technology of Educational Sciences, Social Studies and Psychology of Iran, 2022; Tehran, Iran.