Next Article in Journal
Problem-Based Learning versus Traditional Learning in Physics Education for Engineering Program Students
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Stress Factors and Coping Strategies in Italian Teachers after COVID-19: Evidence from Qualitative Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/educsci14020153
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Linguistic Creativity Domain of Last-Year Compulsory Secondary School Students

by
Isabel Pont-Niclòs
1,
Yolanda Echegoyen-Sanz
1 and
Antonio Martín-Ezpeleta
2,*
1
Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Teaching, University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Language and Literature Teaching, University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(2), 153; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020153
Submission received: 26 December 2023 / Accepted: 28 January 2024 / Published: 31 January 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The importance of creativity in the training of people gained special relevance with the PISA Tests of the OECD, which, for the first time, evaluated the general creativity of 15-year-old students in 2022. This descriptive and quantitative study focuses on the evaluation of linguistic creativity, using different classical instruments to measure divergent thinking and adding new ones, such as metaphorical capacity. Participants were 454 students in their last year of secondary education from eight Spanish educational centers. Results indicate moderate performance in divergent thinking tasks, with students exhibiting limitations in generating novel metaphors, often resorting to literal responses. Statistically significant differences according to gender were found in metaphor generation and in the alternate uses task. A correlation study reveals significant associations between metaphor generation and divergent thinking tasks. These highlight the differential role of semantic memory and cognitive processes involved in metaphor generation and divergent thinking. Finally, this study underlines the complexities and multicomponent nature of creativity as a first step to develop educational policies and interventions targeting creativity. Overall, the importance of addressing creativity in a transdisciplinary way and training teachers on techniques to channel creativity are highlighted, such as through the design of challenges or writing workshops.

1. Introduction

1.1. Creativity and Its Role in Education

Creativity, as a broad concept embracing much more than artistic endeavors, has sparked lively research regarding its role within many social areas, such as the workplace or education. Indeed, creativity is considered a key 21st century skill that allows future citizens to cope with an uncertain future [1]. Nevertheless, the creativity construct has been nourished by multitude of socio-cultural and historical contexts. Hence, its conceptualization has been modified, shaped and reframed over long periods of time [2].
Despite the existence of many definitions of creativity, most of them share two essential characteristics: novelty and usefulness [3]. The former term is associated with newness or uniqueness, and the latter is related to meaningfulness or appropriateness [4]. In addition, researchers agree on the multi-componential nature of creativity [5].
Indeed, the existence of creativity domains has been extensively discussed since the early stages of this research field [6]. In recent years, a consensus has grown acknowledging the multi-componential nature of creativity, compiling both domain-specific and general features and also including social and cultural connections [7,8]. Moreover, some neuroimaging studies lean into this argument, offering supporting evidence that highlights the multifaceted character of creativity [9,10]. From a theoretical point of view, the well-known Amusement Park Theory (APT) states that there are four hierarchical stages that allow creative processes to occur, coming from initial requirements that must be present, such as a supportive environment or a basic level of intelligence and interest, followed by knowledge in general thematic areas, such as science or arts, and arriving at specific domains and microdomains, which correspond to concrete sub-themes and tasks [2,11].
Several theoretical and empirical proposals, rooted in different psychological perspectives, analyze the componential nature of creativity. On the one hand, personality traits of creative individuals have been examined by means of a vast quantity of research instruments [12], ranging from general personality tests to repertoires of specific creative factors. These studies pointed out the existence of certain personality traits, closely related to creativity [13]. Considering “The Big Five” personality model [14], these traits mainly correspond to the openness dimension [12,15]. On the other hand, the mechanisms involved in creative performance are also widely addressed in the literature. In this context, it is essential to define the item to be studied, which may be identified applying the “Four P” (person, process, product and press) model [16] or the more recent “Four C model” [17] with four levels of creative completion: “Big-C”, “Pro-C”, “little-C” and “mini-C”. This latter model amalgamates all the creativity manifestations during the learning process. Hence, nowadays, creativity and learning are thought to be processes working side by side, reinforcing each other by means of the interactions among the students, the community and the cultural context [18].
Therefore, schools are considered the perfect arena to develop the creative abilities of students to meet not only personal and professional, but also social needs [19]. By providing access to diverse perspectives, knowledge and experiences, education plays a crucial role in developing creativity in conjunction with other essential skills, such as communication, teamwork and adaptability. There is even a relationship between creativity and academic performance [20]. This is the reason why several international programs and initiatives, as well as national government policies, have placed creativity training at the forefront of the educational agenda [20]. This is the case of Spain, whose recent educational law [21] highlights that “creativity will be worked on in all subjects”. Lacking the release of the results of the PISA 2022 tests on general creativity, the few studies carried out for the Spanish population (most of them in primary education and now leaving those dedicated to the diagnosis of high-capacity students) show a low development into the secondary education stage.

1.2. Towards Creativity Assessment Instruments: Which Facet of Creativity Is Evaluated?

Based on this complex paradigm, there are several research lines regarding creativity in education, such as the study of the influence of personality traits, cognitive factors or education programs on creative processes, most of which are based on the assessment of creativity, by means of a wide range of instruments and settings [22,23]. Those assessment techniques may be classified into three major approaches: measuring creativity accomplishment, based on product generation; studying individual profiles and characteristics, which lead to creativity potential (cognitive abilities, personality, motivation, emotional characteristics and environmental traits); and the evaluation of creativity potential by means of predefined tasks [1].
The abundance of assessment approaches has sparked controversial debates among researchers since this fragmentation of settings may hinder the development of a comprehensive understanding of creativity and its underlying mechanisms. Hence, reviews have been published aiming to consolidate the existing knowledge and provide a comprehensive overview of the different approaches used to assess creativity [24,25,26,27]. In addition to the compilation of assessments, there is a growing recognition of the need for accuracy, homogenization and transparency in reporting creativity results [5]. Achieving these standards is crucial in advancing the field of creativity research, even though the complexity and multidimensional character of creativity still leave room for the improvement and consolidation of its understanding [28].
However, among all of these scattered assessment techniques, the conceptualization that Guilford stated in 1950 prevails [6], mainly because divergent thinking tests are still the most extensively used to evaluate creativity [29]. Indeed, it is considered that divergent thinking focuses on generating multiple ideas envisioning numerous potential answers to a task, problem or question, whereas convergent thinking involves finding the most appropriate answer to that particular task, question or problem [30].
Despite this fact, the assumption that divergent thinking necessarily represents creativity has faced dispute [31]. Researchers are recently more prone to adopting a more comprehensive approach by evaluating creativity by means of multiple approaches. That implies not evaluating isolated creativity domains, but considering the relationships between them and exploring convergent and divergent thinking processes [32], as well as taking into account further key aspects that forge each individual’s creativity profile [7]. By embracing this integrative perspective, researchers may underpin the complex nature of creativity.

1.3. Focusing on the Assessment of the Linguistic Domain of Creativity

Divergent thinking has been traditionally evaluated by open-ended prompts that ask us to think creatively [26]. In this context, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) [33] and its derivatives have provided extensive evidence of their validity as creativity assessment instruments, shedding light on the correlation between general creative abilities and creative outcomes in different areas [34]. Among those divergent thinking tests, the Alternate Uses Task (AUT) has been the most widely used. It implies generating unusual or alternate uses of everyday objects, such as a brick, a box or a knife. This test holds a notable advantage in providing a solid indication of an individual’s overall ability to generate original ideas. However, it is important to note that despite its strengths, the AUT does have some limitations [35,36]. Regarding the AUT test score as a ubiquitous measure of each and every creativity domain, either scientific, linguistic, performance or daily, may lead to the consideration of a test score as the exclusive indicator of one’s creative potential [37,38], disregarding crucial differences between general and specific forms of creativity [39].
In this regard, there are numerous studies in the literature focused on specific areas of creativity [40], such as linguistic creativity, since languages are ought to be the vehicle to express creativity competency: “Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied” [41]. Taking into account that linguistic creativity may also arise from not following the preestablished rules [42], there are different key points that directly influence this creativity domain, not fully conceptualized yet [43,44]. In this regard, the classic associative theory [45] states that creative processes involve establishing connections between apparently non-associated concepts. Some divergent thinking tasks based on this theory have shown encouraging reliability and validity in quantifying the semantic distance between words: words that usually appear in certain contexts are linked by a lower semantic distance, such as dog and cat, and this is related to low-creativity linguistic profiles [46]. One promising approach in this context is the application of computational methods in order to automate the scoring of semantic distance. For instance, the algorithm developed by Olson and collaborators [47] provides an effortless and open resource to assess creativity by naming unrelated words as a measure of divergent thinking.
Not only has linguistic creativity been considered in terms of semantic distance, but it has also been related to figurative language. In particular, the production of metaphors is a potential source of linguistic innovation, since they are considered the prototypical materialization of creative thinking [43,48]. In this context, the property attribution model states that the establishment of an abstract link (attributive category) is a requirement in order to reflect an unusual common characteristic between two apparently unrelated concepts [49]. In addition, semantic memory plays a key role allowing the retrieval of multiple elements, increasing the likelihood to create original connections between those elements [50,51]. Furthermore, metalinguistic skills are also needed in pursuance of using figurative language in a creative manner [52]. Nevertheless, these skills are developed later on in adolescence, after the capacity for figurative expression comprehension. Indeed, the ability to understand metaphors is directly related to semantic and cognition maturation and follows a highly linear trend [53], whereas the ability to produce metaphors displays a “U” fashion, from childhood up to adolescence [54]. Regardless, the comprehension and application of figurative language are non-necessarily sequential processes and may occur simultaneously.
Taking all of the above stated into account, this study is focused on exploring the links between the creative production of metaphors and different divergent thinking tasks: the alternate uses task and the naming of unrelated words (semantic distance). Its aim is to add up evidence regarding the influence of semantic networks on creative tasks, as well as to obtain insight into the different mechanisms and correlations underlying linguistic creativity. The spotlight of this investigation is on Spanish students in their last year of compulsory secondary school (fourth grade: between 15 and 16 years old), since their linguistic competencies may be mature enough to face the proposed linguistic creative tasks. Furthermore, their creative skills may shed light on the adequacy of the Spanish education system to develop these skills. Specifically, the research questions that nurture this work are:
  • What is the creative performance, in the linguistic domain, of Spanish students in their last year of compulsory secondary school?
  • Are there any differences according to the gender of students?
  • Are the three linguistic creativity tasks (metaphor generation, naming unrelated words and alternate uses task) correlated?

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

A total of 454 Spanish students in their last year of compulsory secondary education participated in this research. Data were collected during the 2021–2022 academic year at eight different Spanish high school centers, from both rural and urban areas located in eastern Spain. There was gender homogeneity among the participants, with 49% male students and 51% female students (no participant marked the “other” category). The age of participants ranged from 14 to 17 years old, with the average age being 15 years old (mean 15.3, standard deviation 0.6), which is the typical age of students corresponding to this level in Spain. All students, teachers and legal tutors were thoroughly informed about the protocols and the aims of the investigation and agreed to participate. In this regard, the agreement documents provided by the Ethics Committee in Experimental Research of the University of Valencia were signed.

2.2. Instruments and Data Collection

Linguistic creativity was assessed by means of three different creativity tasks reported in previous studies: naming unrelated words, metaphor generation and the alternate uses task. In order to collect data, paper-based questionnaires were used, typically during 50 min of a standard class session in Spain. Both the teacher and a researcher were present while the tasks were completed by students. All the instructions for test completion were given by the researcher and a slide presentation with all the steps was shown.
The first creative task was the naming unrelated words task [47], where students were asked to generate 10 nouns (e.g., song) which are as different from each other as possible, in all meanings and uses of the words (e.g., song and ant). All words belonging to other syntactic categories were discarded (e.g., verbs as to sing or adjectives as beautiful) and only the first seven correct words were computed for each student. The scoring process was performed using a computational algorithm developed by the above-mentioned authors and available online [47]. The semantic distance between the words was evaluated from all 21 possible pairs of the seven words, taking the average and providing a percentage value. Commonly, scores ranged from 75 to 80 and usually scores bellow 50 indicated a misunderstanding of the test directions, such as naming antonymous words (e.g., white and black). This score, evaluated by means of a semantic distance/divergent thinking task, has been proven to be related to the ability of formulating creative and remote associations.
The second creative task, the ability to generate metaphors, was assessed by means of an instrument developed by Levorato and Cacciari [52] and later adapted by Kasirer and Mashal [55]. Students were asked to ideate metaphors to describe a total of 10 items. Each of those items refers to a particular feeling or emotion, for instance happiness, sadness, euphoria or frustration. Five of the items were formulated in order to promote a figurative reformulation (e.g., love is …), whereas the remaining five were presented in the form of a simile (e.g., feeling worthless is like …). Prior to the scoring process, inappropriate answers (decontextualized or empty) were discarded and then answers were classified into three categories: novel metaphors, which are unique and original (3 points); conventional metaphors, which are used commonly as an expression or idiom (2 points); and literal responses, which are merely descriptions or analogies without figurative meaning (1 point). All generated metaphors were evaluated by two researchers (one of them a philologist). The interrater reliability was superior at 85%. Those items with discrepancies were discussed by both researchers until they reached a consensus.
Finally, the alternate uses task was carried out by means of the PIC-J test [56,57], which is an adaptation of the TTCT [33], with high validity and reliability in Spanish students. This test assesses divergent thinking skills and the results are associated with the ability to produce multiple ideas and associations. Students were asked to come up with alternative uses for a rubber tube, considering any size and shape valid and even interconnections between different tubes. The scoring procedure is based on the conception of creativity described by Guildford [6], which establishes three categories: fluency, as the number of valid responses; flexibility, as the number of different areas or themes used to formulate the totality of responses; and originality, as the number of unique and unusual responses. A total of 36 particular areas were used in order to compute the flexibility of the students’ responses, classified into four degrees of novelty (e.g., blow/sip, 0 points of originality; scholarly uses, 1 point of originality; delivery, 2 points of originality; and lighting, 3 points of originality).

2.3. Data Analysis

The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software v28. Firstly, the mean and standard deviation for each of the studied creativity dimensions were calculated. Secondly, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to evaluate the normality of the distributions. Then, gender differences were investigated using either the Student’s t-test for independent samples (normally distributed variables) or the Mann–Whitney U test (non-normally distributed variables). Finally, the correlation between variables was analyzed via Pearson’s correlation. In all tests, the significance level was 0.05. The magnitude of the effect size was evaluated according to Cohen’s classification for behavioral sciences [58] by calculating the Hedges’s parameter g or alternatively applying the corresponding formula for non-parametric data when needed [59].

3. Results

3.1. Divergent Thinking Tasks and Creative Metaphor Generation Performance

The results corresponding to the creativity performance associated with each test are shown in Table 1. The values of creativity corresponding to the naming unrelated words task (M = 79.3; SD = 4.4) are considered moderate according to Olson and colleagues [47]. Nevertheless, this mean value lies on the upper level of the moderate interval, which may mean a slightly high ability of students to think divergently during their last level of compulsory education. In spite of that, the values corresponding to the metaphor generation task are, in general, low. This fact is directly related to the typology of responses produced by students, which are represented in Figure 1. As can be observed, a vast number of responses are classified as literal (1 point) or invalid (0 points) responses. Therefore, students are not able to produce novel metaphors appropriately and they resort to analogies or examples, rather than figurative expressions that are either conventional or ideated by themselves.
A higher variability among students was found in the scores of the alternate uses task. As is the case for the naming unrelated words task, this test also assesses the divergent thinking abilities of students. However, a further analysis of the data reveals that even though the fluidity (number of responses of each student) is usually high, the originality and flexibility scores are limited. For instance, as can be observed in Figure 2, the uses for the rubber tube generated by students mainly lie in the same categories (e.g., scholarly uses, ninth category; conduction, second category; storage, fifth category; and personal accessories, fourth category), all associated with low originality profiles.

3.2. Differences According to Gender

Regarding gender differences pertaining to the different creativity tasks, female and male students scored differently, with an outstanding exception for the naming unrelated words task. As can be observed in Table 2, female students ranked more highly than male students for the metaphor generation and alternate uses tasks, whereas equivalent punctuations were obtained for both genders for the naming unrelated words task. Hence, the Student’s t-test (normally distributed variable) and the Mann–Whitney U test (non-normally distributed variables) show only statistically significant differences according to gender for the latter mentioned tasks, both showing small size effects.

3.3. Correlation between Divergent Thinking Tasks and Creative Metaphor Generation

In order to shed light on the possible correlation between the values obtained in the different creativity tasks, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated, and the results are compiled in Table 3. As can be observed, there are positive correlations among the scores of all the different creativity tasks, despite the low value of the correlation coefficient. However, significant correlations have only been found between the metaphor generation task and either the naming unrelated words (p = 0.035) or the alternate uses task (p = 0.001). Consequently, students who performed well in the generation of novel metaphors also managed to obtained good results when naming unrelated words and proposing alternative uses for the rubber tube. In spite of that, surprisingly, the performance in naming unrelated words does not correlate with the ability to come up with unconventional applications of an ordinary object (alternate uses task), even though both tasks have been extensively related to divergent thinking abilities [47].

4. Discussion

The current study explores the linguistic creativity of last-year compulsory secondary school Spanish students, by means of previously reported instruments mainly based on divergent thinking (naming unrelated words and alternate uses task), as well as metaphor generation. The data analysis revealed that students display moderate creative performance in the naming unrelated words task (within the typical interval between 75 and 80 [47]) and the alternate uses task (being the direct punctuation of the test, M = 33.6; SD = 16.9 [57]), whereas their performance in the metaphor generation test was lower than that reported by Kasirer and Mashal [55]. Indeed, the percentage of novel metaphors was only 7% among all computed responses. These results are in line with a study by Pont-Niclòs and colleagues [60], which comparably assessed the scientific and linguistic creativity of first-year secondary school Spanish students. Similar to the findings reported in this work, the pattern of answers of students in the metaphor generation task was mainly associated with their already existing mental representations based on personal experiences and observations. This may be an early stage prior to being able to come up with novel metaphors, since metaphor comprehension and generation have been found to share common brain region activations, even though further research in this field is needed [61,62].
Regarding the influence of gender on linguistic creativity performance, no differences were found in the naming unrelated words task. However, statistically significant differences were obtained for the metaphor generation and alternate uses tasks, with girls scoring higher than boys in both cases. In this context, it must be noted that the impact of gender on creativity is not fully understood, although researchers agree that females and males differ in their cognitive strategies and brain functional task sets when engaging in creativity processes [63,64], which may lead to mixed and inconclusive findings regarding the relationship between gender and creativity. In spite of that, the results herein reported for the naming unrelated words task are in consonance with those described by the authors of the assessing instrument, who found no differences among genders [47]. Regarding the differences found in the metaphor generation and alternate uses task, they may be associated with multiple factors, such as cognitive abilities, preferences or stereotypical factors, which may favor engagement with the task [65,66,67]. In the case of the metaphor generation task, equivalent differences among genders were found for first-year secondary school Spanish students [60], whereas for the alternate uses tasks, studies using the instrument herein reported reached contrary results [57,68].
The correlation between the three different tasks assessing creativity has also been explored. Two of the tasks are mainly related to divergent thinking (naming unrelated words and alternate uses tasks), while the other includes broader creative processes (metaphor generation task). These sorts of correlations have sparked much debate, since they are related to the general/domain-specificity nature of creativity and the processes implicated at creation [69,70]. Indeed, multiple recent studies have examined neuronal activity during the completion of creativity tests, aiming to shed light on the underlying mechanisms of creativity production at different domains and their possible common patterns.
Regarding metaphor generation, findings suggest the significance of both verbal knowledge and working memory functions in understanding and creating metaphors [71]. Hence, similarity is a crucial factor in metaphor processing [72], even though the fluency of ideas has also been found to be strongly related to the creation of novel metaphors [55]. While both conventional and novel metaphor generation are associated with attentional resources and inhibitory control, the process of creating novel metaphors involves a more intricate and diverse set of cognitive mechanisms, such as selective attention, divergent thinking and executive functions, which likely promote processes like cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control [73]. One common feature of these creative endeavors is found to be the semantic memory, which serves as the cognitive system responsible for storing factual information and knowledge, irrespective of the time or context in which it was acquired [50,74].
Therefore, the ability to access and connect disparate information from semantic memory contributes significantly to the generation of novel and innovative ideas, including naming unrelated words, proposing alternate uses and creating metaphors. Indeed, semantic distance is used in order to assess these creative tasks with high reliability and validity [47,55,75]. Nevertheless, the completion of these tasks relies on different semantic memory patterns: flexible and more interconnected semantic networks promote the high-creative production of metaphors [76]. Given the correlations obtained in this work, the metaphor generation, the alternate uses and the naming unrelated words tasks may require high versatility in order to combine remote concepts while inhibiting obvious associations, resulting in a significant correlation between all tasks.
Conversely, there were no significant correlations between the naming unrelated words task and the alternate uses for a rubber tube task, which is in contrast with the correlation found by Olson and colleagues [47] for alternate uses for a brick task. However, the authors point out the role of the object used for the alternate uses task in the generation of responses. This fact may be related to the role of episodic memory, which is involved in divergent creative thinking and which enhances the production of ideas during the alternate uses task depending on the object considered and the personal experiences and profile of the subject [77].

5. Conclusions

This study has summarized evidence concerning the multifaceted assessment of linguistic creativity during students’ last year of compulsory education in Spain. In particular, the results indicate moderate performance in divergent thinking tasks, while reporting limitations in generating novel metaphors. These findings point out the distinct yet interconnected processes underlying divergent thinking and metaphor generation. Understanding these processes is pivotal for designing and applying assessment tools to encompass various dimensions of creativity accurately within educational scenarios. Nevertheless, some potential limitations of this study have to be mentioned. Firstly, the sample of the study, although considerable, is not representative. Further studies will be carried out on a larger and more delocalized population. In addition, only the last course of compulsory secondary education has been investigated. Hence, expanding this research to all levels of secondary education would shed light on the progression of creativity competencies and the influence of the educational system on their promotion. Finally, the assessment tools used, although validated and widely used, may be refined and complemented by using additional instruments for different creativity domains, such as scientific [78] or artistic [79] domains, and also tests dealing with preferences and self-perceptions on creativity endeavors [80,81]. This combination may provide a more integrative and complete insight into the creativity profiles of students.
The results obtained for this Spanish population cannot be interpreted as positive and it will be necessary to corroborate them with the general measurements of the OECD PISA Tests when these are published. This organization has set an educational course based on competency learning, which implies the revaluation of creativity in educational systems, particularly in the Spanish one. The recent LOMLOE educational law clearly states this, but it is too early to be able to evaluate its effectiveness in the matter of channeling creativity [21]. At this point, three years after its implementation, the results related to creativity are not good, as demonstrated in this study. Thus, it is advisable to continue paying attention to the assessment of creativity but also to encourage technical training for teachers because they are thought to play a key role in the promotion of these competencies [82]. In particular, the creative behaviors of teachers may result in creative emulation by students [83]. Moreover, tailoring creative interventions to classrooms, by including multiple representations, digital tools, novel experiences and expecting unexpected responses, may nurture the creative abilities of students [84] because they no longer only have to study creators but rather become small (or big) ones. Moreover, it is imperative to adopt a transdisciplinary approach to promote creativity across all domains. The cultivation of creativity is not confined to a single subject area; instead, it needs integration throughout the educational spectrum. Consequently, training educators and educational professionals is essential, not only to raise awareness about the importance of creativity, but also to provide specific tools to design didactic interventions fostering transdisciplinary creativity [85,86].
In summary, the current study quantitatively examined the linguistic creativity of last-year compulsory secondary school students by means of tasks rooted in different creative processes. The results herein reported point out the importance of integrating creativity into educational policies and practices, calling for holistic approaches that recognize the multifaceted nature of creativity since it is an essential competency for innovation and adaptability in this ever-changing world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.P.-N., Y.E.-S. and A.M.-E.; methodology, Y.E.-S. and A.M.-E.; formal analysis, I.P.-N. and A.M.-E.; investigation, I.P.-N.; data curation, I.P.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, I.P.-N.; writing—review and editing, Y.E.-S. and A.M.-E.; supervision, Y.E.-S. and A.M.-E.; funding acquisition, A.M.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF A way of making Europe grant number PID2021-124333NB-I00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study may be available under inquiry due to ethical considerations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

The categories corresponding to the alternate uses task were those described by the authors of the standardized PIC-J test [57].
Table A1. Pearson’s correlation coefficient of the creativity performance in the different tasks.
Table A1. Pearson’s correlation coefficient of the creativity performance in the different tasks.
Category of ResponsesDescription of the Uses Proposed by Students
1Blowing, smelling, slurping
2Conduction
3Playing, toys
4Personal accessories
5Storing
6Attacking, weapons
7Protecting, shelter, isolation
8Holding
9Scholarly uses
10Sports
11Construction
12Sanitary and scientific uses
13Looking into
14General tools
15Decoration
16Home tools
17Clothing
18Grabbing, catching, dragging
19Tying
10Making noises
21Travelling, transporting
22Communication
23Job tools (such as carpentry)
24Molding
25Floating
26Indicating, lightening
27Hiding
28Recycling, change of state
29Climbing, going up
30Geometric assemblies
31Connecting
32Food
33Body parts
34Measuring
35Magic or fantasy tools
36Other uses not fitting in any of the above categories
From 1 to 7: 0 points of originality; From 8 to 18: 1 point of originality; From 19 to 24: 2 points of originality; From 25 to 36: 3 points of originality.

References

  1. Thornhill-Miller, B.; Camarda, A.; Mercier, M.; Burkhardt, J.M.; Morisseau, T.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Vinchon, F.; El Hayek, S.; Augereau-Landais, M.; Mourey, F.; et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kaufman, J.C.; Glaveanu, V.P. A Review of Creativity Theories: What Questions Are We Trying to Answer? In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, 2nd ed.; Kaufman, J.C., Sternberg, R.J., Eds.; Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 27–43. [Google Scholar]
  3. Stein, M.I. Creativity and culture. J. Psychol. 1953, 36, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Runco, M.A.; Jaeger, G.J. The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creat. Res. J. 2012, 24, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barbot, B.; Hass, R.W.; Reiter-Palmon, R. Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2019, 13, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guildford, J.P. Creativity. Am. Psychol. 1950, 5, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Glaveanu, V.P.; Hanchett-Hanson, M.; Baer, J.; Barbot, B.; Clapp, E.P.; Corazza, G.E.; Hennessey, B.; Kaufman, J.C.; Lebuda, I.; Lubart, T.; et al. Advancing Creativity Theory and Research: A Socio-cultural Manifesto. J. Creat. Behav. 2020, 54, 741–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baer, J. Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. J. Creat. Behav. 2012, 46, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sunavsky, A.; Poppenk, J. Neuroimaging predictors of creativity in healthy adults. Neuroimage 2020, 206, 116292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boccia, M.; Piccardi, L.; Palermo, L.; Nori, R.; Palmiero, M. Where do bright ideas occur in our brain? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies of domain-specific creativity. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baer, J.; Kaufman, J.C. Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Rev. 2005, 27, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Batey, M.; Furnham, A. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 2006, 132, 355–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Romo, M.; Sanchez-Ruiz, M.J.; Alfonso-Benlliure, V. Creativity and personality across domains: A critical review. UB J. Psychol. 2017, 47, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. Four ways five factors are basic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1992, 13, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Amabile, T.M.; Pillemer, J. Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 2012, 46, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rhodes, M. An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa 1961, 42, 305–310. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaufman, J.C.; Beghetto, R.A. Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2009, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lemmetty, S.; Collin, K. Self-directed learning in creative activity: An ethnographic study in technology-based work. J. Creat. Behav. 2021, 55, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vincent-Lancrin, S.; González-Sancho, C.; Bouckaert, M.; De Luca, F.; Fernández- Barrerra, M.; Jacotin, G.; Urgel, J.; Vidal, Q. Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tzachrista, M.; Gkintoni, E.; Halkiopoulos, C. Neurocognitive Profile of Creativity in Improving Academic Performance. A Scoping Review. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. LOMLOE: Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de Diciembre, Por la Que Se Modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de Mayo, de Educación. Available online: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-17264 (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  22. Wang, H.H.; Deng, X. The Bridging Role of Goals between Affective Traits and Positive Creativity. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sahin, A.; Dikmen, S.; Karakaya, Y.E. Bibliometric Mapping of Research on Thinking Skills and Creativity in Education. Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2023, 9, 365–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Snyder, H.T.; Hammond, J.A.; Grohman, M.G.; Katz-Buonincontro, J. Creativity measurement in undergraduate students from 1984–2013: A systematic review. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2019, 13, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Karwowski, M.; Han, M.H.; Beghetto, R.A. Toward dynamizing the measurement of creative confidence beliefs. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2019, 13, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Acar, S.; Runco, M.A. Divergent thinking: New methods, recent research, and extended theory. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2019, 13, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cotter, K.N.; Silvia, P.J. Ecological assessment in research on aesthetics, creativity, and the arts: Basic concepts, common questions, and gentle warnings. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2019, 13, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Barbot, B.; Said-Metwaly, S. Is There Really a Creativity Crisis? A Critical Review and Meta-analytic Re-Appraisal. J. Creat. Behav. 2021, 55, 696–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kapoor, H.; Reiter-Palmon, R.; Kaufman, J.C. Norming the Muses: Establishing the Psychometric Properties of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2021, 39, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koivisto, M.; Grassini, S. Best humans still outperform artificial intelligence in a creative divergent thinking task. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 13601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Silvia, P.J.; Winterstein, B.P.; Willse, J.T.; Barona, C.M.; Cram, J.T.; Hess, K.I.; Martinez, J.L.; Richard, C.A. Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2008, 2, 68–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Long, H.; Kerr, B.A.; Emler, T.E.; Birdnow, M. A Critical Review of Assessments of Creativity in Education. Rev. Res. Educ. 2022, 46, 288–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Torrance, E.P. Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. J. Creat. Behav. 1972, 6, 236–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Beaty, R.E.; Johnson, D.R. Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance. Behav. Res. Methods 2021, 53, 757–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Barbot, B. The dynamics of creative ideation: Introducing a new assessment paradigm. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Runco, M.A. Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychol. Aesthet. Create. Arts 2008, 2, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Reiter-Palmon, R.; Forthmann, B.; Barbot, B. Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychol. Aesthet. Create. Arts 2019, 13, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Runco, M.A.; Acar, S. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creat. Res. J. 2012, 24, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kaufman, J.C.; Glaveanu, V.P.; Baer, J. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Said-Metwaly, S.; Van den Noortgate, W.; Kyndt, E. Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creat. Theor. Res. Appl. 2017, 4, 238–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chomsky, N. The Reasons of State; Penguin: London, UK, 2003; p. 402. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sampson, G. Two ideas of creativity. In Evidence. Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language; Hinton, M., Ed.; Peter Lang Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bergs, A. What, if anything, is linguistic creativity. Gestalt Theory 2019, 41, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alfonso-Benlliure, V.; Mínguez-López, X. Literary Competence and Creativity in Secondary Students. ReRev. Interuniv. Formación Profr. 2022, 97, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mednick, S.A. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychol. Rev. 1962, 69, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Beaty, R.E.; Kenett, Y.N.; Hass, R.W.; Schacter, D.L. Semantic memory and creativity: The costs and benefits of semantic memory structure in generating original ideas. Think. Reason. 2023, 29, 305–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Olson, J.A.; Nahas, J.; Chmoulevitch, D.; Cropper, S.J.; Webb, M.E. Naming unrelated words predicts creativity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2022340118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. McKerracher, A. Understanding creativity, one metaphor at a time. Creat. Res. J. 2016, 28, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Glucksberg, S.; McGlone, M.S.; Manfredi, D. Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 1997, 36, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kumar, A.A. Semantic memory: A review of methods, models, and current challenges. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2021, 28, 40–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kenett, Y.N.; Faust, M. A semantic network cartography of the creative mind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2019, 23, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Levorato, M.C.; Cacciari, C. The creation of new figurative expressions: Psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. J. Child Lang. 2002, 29, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Melogno, S.; Pinto, M.A.; Levi, G. Metaphor and metonymy in ASD children: A critical review from a developmental perspective. Res. Autism. Spectr. Disord. 2012, 6, 1289–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Winner, E.; McCarthy, M.; Gardner, H. The ontogenesis of metaphor. In Cognition and Figurative Language; Honeck, R.P., Hoffman, R.R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1980; pp. 341–347. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kasirer, A.; Mashal, N. Fluency or similarities? Cognitive abilities that contribute to creative metaphor generation. Creat. Res. J. 2018, 30, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Barraca, J.; Poveda, B.; Artola, T.; Mosteiro, P.; Sánchez, N.; Ancillo, I. Three Versions of a new test for assessing creativity in Spanish population (PIN-N, PIC-J, PIC-A). In Proceedings of the ECHA Conference, Paris, France, 22 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Artola, T.; Barraca, J.; Martín, C.; Mosteiro, P.; Ancillo, I.; Poveda, B. Prueba de Imaginación Creativa para Jóvenes; Hogrefe TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  58. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioral Sciences; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  59. Field, A. Discovering Statistic Using SPPS; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pont-Niclòs, I.; Martín-Ezpeleta, A.; Echegoyen-Sanz, Y. The Turning Point: Scientific Creativity Assessment and Its Relationship with Other Creative Domains in First Year Secondary Students. J. Pendidik. IPA Indones. 2023, 12, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Benedek, M.; Jauk, E.; Fink, A.; Koschutnig, K.; Reishofer, G.; Ebner, F.; Neubauer, A.C. To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas. Neuroimage 2014, 88, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. He, L.; Kenett, Y.N.; Zhuang, K.; Liu, C.; Zeng, R.; Yan, T.; Huo, T.; Qiu, J. The relation between semantic memory structure, associative abilities, and verbal and figural creativity. Think. Reason. 2020, 27, 268–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abraham, A. Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging Behav. 2016, 10, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Taylor, C.L.; Barbot, B. Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 174, 110661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Baer, J.; Kaufman, J.C. Gender differences in creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 2011, 42, 75–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Artola, T.; Sastre, S.; Jiménez-Blanco, A.; Alvarado, J.M. Evaluación de las actitudes, motivación e intereses lectores en preadolescentes y adolescentes. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 2021, 19, 651–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Taylor, C.L.; Said-Metwaly, S.; Camarda, A.; Barbot, B. Gender differences and variability in creative ability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the greater male variability hypothesis in creativity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2023; advanced online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pifarré-Turmo, M.; Cujba, A.; Sanuy-Burgués, J.; Martí Ros, L. Evaluación del desarrollo de la creatividad en Secundaria con el Test PIC-J. In Proceedings of the VIII Congreso Internacional de Psicología y Educación, Alicante, Spain, 15–17 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  69. Baer, J. The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Rev. 2015, 37, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Taylor, C.L.; Kaufman, J.C. Values across creative domains. J. Creat. Behav. 2021, 55, 501–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chiappe, D.L.; Chiappe, P. The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 2007, 56, 172–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bowdle, B.F.; Gentner, D. The career of metaphor. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 112, 193–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Menashe, S.; Leshem, R.; Heruti, V.; Kasirer, A.; Yair, T.; Mashal, N. Elucidating the role of selective attention, divergent thinking, language abilities, and executive functions in metaphor generation. Neuropsychologia 2020, 142, 107458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kenett, Y.N. What can quantitative measures of semantic distance tell us about creativity? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2019, 27, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Beaty, R.E.; Johnson, D.R.; Zeitlen, D.C.; Forthmann, B. Semantic distance and the alternate uses task: Recommendations for reliable automated assessment of originality. Creat. Res. J. 2022, 34, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, Y.; Kenett, Y.N.; Hu, W.; Beaty, R.E. Flexible semantic network structure supports the production of creative metaphor. Creat. Res. J. 2021, 33, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chen, Q.; He, R.; Sun, J.; Ding, K.; Wang, X.; He, L.; Zhuang, K.; Lloyd-Cox, J.; Qiu, J. Common brain activation and connectivity patterns supporting the generation of creative uses and creative metaphors. Neuropsychologia 2023, 181, 108487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De Vries, H.B.; Lubart, T.I. Scientific creativity: Divergent and convergent thinking and the impact of culture. J. Creat. Behav. 2019, 53, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mansour, M.; Martin, A.J.; Anderson, M.; Gibson, R.; Liem, G.A.; Sudmalis, D. Young people’s creative and performing arts participation and arts self-concept: A longitudinal study of reciprocal effects. J. Creat. Behav. 2018, 52, 240–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kaufman, J.C. Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2012, 6, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Elisondo, R.C. Creative Actions Scale: A Spanish scale of creativity in different domains. J. Creat. Behav. 2021, 55, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cotter, K.N.; Beghetto, R.A.; Kaufman, J.C. Creativity in the Classroom: Advice for Best Practices. In Homo Creativus; Lubart, T., Botella, M., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Caroff, X., Guegan, J., Mouchiroud, C., Nelson, J., Zenasni, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 249–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Root-Bernstein, R.; Root-Bernstein, M. People, Passions, Problems: The Role of Creative Exemplars in Teaching for Creativity, In Creative Contradictions in Education: Cross Disciplinary Paradoxes and Perspectives; Beghetto, R.A., Sriraman, B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 143–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kaplan, D. Creativity in Education: Teaching for Creativity Development. Psychology 2019, 10, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Echegoyen-Sanz, Y.; Martín-Ezpeleta, A. Creativity and ecofeminism in teacher training. Qualitative analysis of digital stories. Profr. Rev. Currículum Y Form. Profr. 2021, 25, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Martín-Ezpeleta, A.; Fuster-García, C.; Vila-Carneiro, Z.; Echegoyen-Sanz, Y. Read to think creatively (COVID-19): Relationship between reading and creativity in teachers in training. Rev. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2022, 97, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00153 g001
Figure 1. Classification of students’ responses for the metaphor generation task.
Figure 1. Classification of students’ responses for the metaphor generation task.
Education 14 00153 g001
Education 14 00153 g002
Figure 2. Classification of students’ responses for the alternate uses task. From 1 to 7: 0 points of originality; from 8 to 18: 1 point of originality; from 19 to 24: 2 points of originality; from 25 to 36: 3 points of originality. A description for each category can be found in Appendix A (Table A1).
Figure 2. Classification of students’ responses for the alternate uses task. From 1 to 7: 0 points of originality; from 8 to 18: 1 point of originality; from 19 to 24: 2 points of originality; from 25 to 36: 3 points of originality. A description for each category can be found in Appendix A (Table A1).
Education 14 00153 g002
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for each creativity task (N = 454).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for each creativity task (N = 454).
Creativity TestMinMaxMeanSD
Naming unrelated words64.490.879.34.4
Metaphor generation *12511.24.6
Alternate Uses Task (Total) *38933.616.9
Alternate Uses Task (Fluidity) *13512.86.3
Alternate Uses Task (Flexibility) *1218.83.6
Alternate Uses Task (Originality) *04212.07.7
* Non-normally distributed variable; SD: standard deviation.
Table 2. Differences in creativity task performance according to gender.
Table 2. Differences in creativity task performance according to gender.
Creativity TestGenderMeanSDzpg
Naming unrelated wordsFemale79.084.170.940.34-
Male79.514.71
Metaphor generation *Female11.764.652.400.01 **0.11
Male10.544.37
Alternate Uses Task (Total) *Female36.7517.073.60<0.001 ***0.17
Male30.3716.10
* Non-normally distributed variable; SD: standard deviation; **: There are statistically significant differences at the 0.01 level; ***: There are statistically significant differences at the 0.001 level.
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficient of creativity performance for different tasks.
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficient of creativity performance for different tasks.
Creativity TestNaming Unrelated WordsMetaphor
Generation		Alternate Uses Task
Naming unrelated words10.0108 *0.030
Metaphor generation *0.108 *10.351 **
Alternate Uses Task (Total) *0.0300.351 **1
* Non-normally distributed variable; *: There are statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level; **: There are statistically significant differences at the 0.01 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pont-Niclòs, I.; Echegoyen-Sanz, Y.; Martín-Ezpeleta, A. Assessing the Linguistic Creativity Domain of Last-Year Compulsory Secondary School Students. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020153

AMA Style

Pont-Niclòs I, Echegoyen-Sanz Y, Martín-Ezpeleta A. Assessing the Linguistic Creativity Domain of Last-Year Compulsory Secondary School Students. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(2):153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020153

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pont-Niclòs, Isabel, Yolanda Echegoyen-Sanz, and Antonio Martín-Ezpeleta. 2024. "Assessing the Linguistic Creativity Domain of Last-Year Compulsory Secondary School Students" Education Sciences 14, no. 2: 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020153

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop