relationship between creative and critical thinking

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking vs. creative thinking.

Creative thinking is a way of looking at problems or situations from a fresh perspective to conceive of something new or original.

Critical thinking is the logical, sequential disciplined process of rationalizing, analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to make informed judgments and/or decisions.

Critical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking – Key Differences

• Creative thinking tries to create something new, while critical thinking seeks to assess worth or validity of something that already exists.
• Creative thinking is generative, while critical thinking is analytical.
• Creative thinking is divergent, while critical thinking is convergent.
• Creative thinking is focused on possibilities, while critical thinking is focused on probability.
• Creative thinking is accomplished by disregarding accepted principles, while critical thinking is accomplished by applying accepted principles.

About Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is a process utilized to generate lists of new, varied and unique ideas or possibilities. Creative thinking brings a fresh perspective and sometimes unconventional solution to solve a problem or address a challenge.  When you are thinking creatively, you are focused on exploring ideas, generating possibilities, and/or developing various theories.

Creative thinking can be performed both by an unstructured process such as brainstorming, or by a structured process such as lateral thinking.

Brainstorming is the process for generating unique ideas and solutions through spontaneous and freewheeling group discussion. Participants are encouraged to think aloud and suggest as many ideas as they can, no matter how outlandish it may seem.

Lateral thinking uses a systematic process that leads to logical conclusions. However, it involves changing a standard thinking sequence and arriving at a solution from completely different angles.

No matter what process you chose, the ultimate goal is to generate ideas that are unique, useful and worthy of further elaboration. Often times, critical thinking is performed after creative thinking has generated various possibilities. Critical thinking is used to vet those ideas to determine if they are practical.

Creative Thinking Skills

• Open-mindedness
• Flexibility
• Imagination
• Adaptability
• Risk-taking
• Originality
• Elaboration
• Brainstorming

About Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, synthesizing, evaluating information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to make informed judgments and/or decisions.

Critical thinking involves the ability to:

• remain objective

In general, critical thinking is used to make logical well-formed decisions after analyzing and evaluating information and/or an array of ideas.

On a daily basis, it can be used for a variety of reasons including:

• to form an argument
• to articulate and justify a position or point of view
• to reduce possibilities to convergent toward a single answer
• to vet creative ideas to determine if they are practical
• to judge an assumption
• to solve a problem
• to reach a conclusion

Critical Thinking Skills

• Interpreting
• Integrating
• Contrasting
• Classifying
• Forecasting
• Hypothesizing

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking

What's the difference.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct but equally important cognitive processes. Creative thinking involves generating new ideas, concepts, and solutions by exploring various possibilities and thinking outside the box. It encourages imagination, originality, and innovation. On the other hand, critical thinking involves analyzing, evaluating, and questioning ideas, arguments, and information to make informed decisions and judgments. It emphasizes logical reasoning, evidence-based thinking, and the ability to identify biases and fallacies. While creative thinking focuses on generating ideas, critical thinking focuses on evaluating and refining those ideas. Both thinking processes are essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and personal growth.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that play crucial roles in problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. While they share some similarities, they also have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of creative thinking and critical thinking, highlighting their differences and showcasing how they complement each other in various contexts.

Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is a cognitive process that involves generating new ideas, concepts, or solutions by exploring possibilities, making connections, and thinking outside the box. It is characterized by originality, flexibility, and fluency of thought. Creative thinkers often challenge conventional wisdom, embrace ambiguity, and are open to taking risks. They are adept at finding alternative perspectives and exploring multiple solutions to problems.

One of the key attributes of creative thinking is the ability to think divergently. This means being able to generate a wide range of ideas or possibilities, often through brainstorming or free association. Creative thinkers are not limited by constraints and are willing to explore unconventional or unorthodox approaches to problem-solving.

Another important aspect of creative thinking is the ability to make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts or ideas. This skill, known as associative thinking, allows creative thinkers to draw upon a diverse range of knowledge and experiences to generate innovative solutions. They can see patterns, analogies, and relationships that others may overlook.

Furthermore, creative thinking involves the willingness to take risks and embrace failure as a learning opportunity. Creative thinkers understand that not all ideas will be successful, but they are not deterred by setbacks. They view failures as stepping stones towards finding the right solution and are persistent in their pursuit of innovative ideas.

In summary, creative thinking is characterized by divergent thinking, associative thinking, risk-taking, and persistence. It encourages the exploration of new ideas and unconventional approaches to problem-solving.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to form reasoned judgments or decisions. It is characterized by logical, systematic, and objective thinking. Critical thinkers are skilled at identifying biases, assumptions, and fallacies in arguments, and they strive to make well-informed and rational decisions based on evidence.

One of the key attributes of critical thinking is the ability to think analytically. Critical thinkers break down complex problems or situations into smaller components, examine the relationships between them, and evaluate the evidence or information available. They are adept at identifying logical inconsistencies or flaws in reasoning, which helps them make sound judgments.

Another important aspect of critical thinking is the ability to evaluate information objectively. Critical thinkers are skeptical and question the validity and reliability of sources. They seek evidence, consider alternative viewpoints, and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments before forming their own opinions. This attribute is particularly valuable in today's information-rich society, where misinformation and biased narratives are prevalent.

Furthermore, critical thinking involves the ability to think systematically. Critical thinkers follow a logical and structured approach to problem-solving, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered. They are skilled at identifying assumptions, clarifying concepts, and drawing logical conclusions based on the available evidence. This systematic approach helps minimize errors and biases in decision-making.

In summary, critical thinking is characterized by analytical thinking, objective evaluation, skepticism, and systematic reasoning. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and helps individuals navigate complex and information-rich environments.

Complementary Attributes

While creative thinking and critical thinking have distinct attributes, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often complement each other and can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

Creative thinking can benefit from critical thinking by providing a framework for evaluating and refining ideas. Critical thinking helps creative thinkers assess the feasibility, viability, and desirability of their innovative ideas. It allows them to identify potential flaws, consider alternative perspectives, and make informed decisions about which ideas to pursue further.

On the other hand, critical thinking can benefit from creative thinking by expanding the range of possibilities and solutions. Creative thinking encourages critical thinkers to explore unconventional approaches, challenge assumptions, and consider alternative viewpoints. It helps them break free from rigid thinking patterns and discover innovative solutions to complex problems.

Moreover, both creative thinking and critical thinking require open-mindedness and a willingness to embrace ambiguity. They both involve a certain level of discomfort and uncertainty, as individuals venture into uncharted territories of thought. By combining creative and critical thinking, individuals can develop a well-rounded cognitive toolkit that enables them to tackle a wide range of challenges.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that bring unique attributes to problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. Creative thinking emphasizes divergent thinking, associative thinking, risk-taking, and persistence, while critical thinking emphasizes analytical thinking, objective evaluation, skepticism, and systematic reasoning.

While they have their differences, creative thinking and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive. They complement each other and can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Creative thinking benefits from critical thinking by providing a framework for evaluation and refinement, while critical thinking benefits from creative thinking by expanding the range of possibilities and solutions.

By cultivating both creative and critical thinking skills, individuals can enhance their ability to navigate complex problems, make well-informed decisions, and drive innovation in various domains. These cognitive processes are not only valuable in academic and professional settings but also in everyday life, where the ability to think creatively and critically can lead to personal growth and success.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Exploring the Difference: Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking

Annie Walls

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that play important roles in problem-solving and decision-making. While creative thinking involves generating innovative ideas and solutions, critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information to make reasoned judgments. Both types of thinking have their unique characteristics and benefits. In this article, we will explore the difference between creative thinking and critical thinking, and how they can be applied in various contexts.

Key Takeaways

• Creative thinking involves generating new ideas and solutions.
• Critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information to make reasoned judgments.
• Creative thinkers are characterized by their curiosity, open-mindedness, and willingness to take risks.
• Critical thinkers are characterized by their skepticism, logical reasoning, and attention to detail.
• Creative thinking can lead to innovation and breakthroughs.

Understanding Creative Thinking

Defining creative thinking.

Creative thinking is the ability to think outside the box and generate innovative ideas. It involves breaking free from conventional ways of thinking and exploring new possibilities. Creativity is the key element in creative thinking , as it allows individuals to come up with unique and original solutions to problems.

Creative thinking is not limited to artistic endeavors; it can be applied to various aspects of life, including problem-solving, decision-making, and even everyday tasks. It requires an open mind, a willingness to take risks, and the ability to see things from different perspectives.

In order to foster creative thinking, it is important to create an environment that encourages experimentation and exploration. This can be done by providing opportunities for brainstorming, encouraging collaboration, and embracing failure as a learning opportunity.

Here are some techniques that can enhance creative thinking:

• Mind mapping: A visual tool that helps organize thoughts and generate new ideas.
• Divergent thinking: Generating multiple solutions to a problem.
• Analogical thinking: Drawing connections between unrelated concepts.

Tip: Embrace curiosity and embrace the unknown. Be open to new experiences and ideas, and don't be afraid to take risks.

Characteristics of Creative Thinkers

Creative thinkers possess a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from others. They have the ability to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to problems. Imagination plays a crucial role in their thought process, allowing them to envision possibilities that others may not see. They are open-minded and willing to explore different perspectives, which helps them generate fresh ideas. Creative thinkers are also comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, as they understand that these conditions can lead to breakthroughs. They are not afraid to take risks and are willing to challenge the status quo.

Benefits of Creative Thinking

Creative thinking offers numerous benefits that can enhance various aspects of life. One of the key advantages of creative thinking is the ability to generate innovative ideas and solutions. Creativity allows individuals to think outside the box and come up with unique approaches to problems. This can lead to breakthroughs and advancements in various fields.

Another benefit of creative thinking is its impact on personal growth and self-expression. By engaging in creative activities, individuals can explore their inner thoughts and emotions, allowing for self-discovery and self-reflection. Creative pursuits such as painting, writing, or playing an instrument can serve as outlets for self-expression and can contribute to overall well-being.

In addition, creative thinking can foster collaboration and teamwork. When individuals approach problems with a creative mindset, they are more likely to seek input and ideas from others. This promotes a collaborative environment where diverse perspectives are valued and innovative solutions are developed.

Furthermore, creative thinking can enhance problem-solving skills. By thinking creatively, individuals are able to consider multiple perspectives and explore alternative solutions. This can lead to more effective problem-solving and decision-making processes.

Overall, creative thinking offers a range of benefits, from generating innovative ideas to fostering collaboration and enhancing problem-solving skills.

Techniques for Enhancing Creative Thinking

In order to enhance creative thinking, there are several techniques that can be employed:

• Mind Mapping : This technique involves visually organizing ideas and concepts in a non-linear manner, allowing for connections and associations to be made.
• Brainstorming : This popular technique involves generating a large number of ideas in a short amount of time, without judgment or evaluation.
• Divergent Thinking : This approach encourages exploring multiple possibilities and perspectives, thinking outside the box, and avoiding conventional solutions.

Tip: When using these techniques, it is important to create a supportive and non-judgmental environment that encourages free thinking and idea generation.

By utilizing these techniques, individuals and teams can unlock their creative potential and generate innovative ideas to drive growth and success.

Exploring Critical Thinking

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is essentially a questioning, challenging approach to knowledge and perceived wisdom. It involves ideas and information from an objective perspective, analyzing and evaluating them to form well-reasoned judgments and decisions. It goes beyond accepting information at face value and encourages a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Critical thinkers are curious, open-minded, and willing to consider different perspectives. They are skilled at identifying biases and assumptions, and they strive to make logical and evidence-based conclusions.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers possess several key characteristics that set them apart:

• Analytical Skills : Critical thinkers are adept at analyzing information and breaking it down into its component parts. They can identify patterns, evaluate evidence, and draw logical conclusions.
• Open-mindedness : Critical thinkers are willing to consider different perspectives and are open to changing their beliefs or opinions based on new evidence or information.
• Skepticism : Critical thinkers approach information with a healthy dose of skepticism. They question assumptions, challenge authority, and seek evidence to support or refute claims.

Tip: Critical thinkers actively engage in critical reflection, constantly questioning their own thinking and seeking to improve their reasoning abilities.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking has numerous benefits that can positively impact various aspects of life. It enhances problem-solving skills, allowing individuals to analyze complex situations and make informed decisions. Analytical thinking is a key component of critical thinking, enabling individuals to break down problems into smaller parts and examine them from different perspectives. This approach helps in identifying potential biases and assumptions, leading to more objective and rational decision-making.

In addition, critical thinking promotes effective communication . By critically evaluating information and arguments, individuals can articulate their thoughts and ideas more clearly and persuasively. They can also identify logical fallacies and inconsistencies in others' arguments, enabling them to engage in meaningful and constructive discussions.

Furthermore, critical thinking fosters creativity and innovation . By questioning assumptions and challenging conventional wisdom, individuals can generate new ideas and approaches. Critical thinkers are more open to exploring alternative solutions and are willing to take risks in order to achieve better outcomes.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Developing critical thinking skills is essential for success in both personal and professional life. It involves the ability to analyze information objectively, evaluate arguments and evidence, and make informed decisions. Here are some strategies that can help enhance your critical thinking skills:

• Ask Questions: One of the key aspects of critical thinking is asking thoughtful and probing questions. This helps you gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter and challenges assumptions.
• Seek Different Perspectives: To develop critical thinking skills, it is important to consider multiple viewpoints and perspectives. This allows you to evaluate arguments from different angles and make well-rounded judgments.
• Practice Problem-Solving: Critical thinking involves problem-solving skills. Engaging in activities that require you to analyze and solve problems can help sharpen your critical thinking abilities.
• Reflect on Your Thinking: Take time to reflect on your own thinking process. Consider the biases, assumptions, and logical fallacies that may be influencing your thoughts and decisions.
• Continuous Learning: Critical thinking is a skill that can be developed and improved over time. Engage in continuous learning, read diverse perspectives, and challenge your own beliefs and assumptions.

By incorporating these strategies into your daily life, you can enhance your critical thinking skills and become a more effective problem solver and decision-maker.

Comparing Creative and Critical Thinking

Different Approaches to Problem Solving

When it comes to problem solving, creative thinking and critical thinking take different approaches. Creative thinkers often rely on their imagination and intuition to generate unique and innovative solutions. They think outside the box and are not afraid to take risks. On the other hand, critical thinkers approach problem solving in a more analytical and logical manner. They carefully analyze the problem, gather information, and evaluate different options before making a decision.

Role of Imagination and Logic

The role of imagination and logic in creative and critical thinking is crucial. Imagination allows us to think outside the box, explore new possibilities, and come up with innovative ideas. It is the fuel that ignites creativity and helps us see beyond the obvious. On the other hand, logic provides the framework for organizing and analyzing information, making rational decisions, and solving problems systematically. It helps us evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of our ideas.

When it comes to problem-solving, a balance between imagination and logic is essential. While imagination helps generate unique and unconventional solutions, logic ensures that these solutions are practical and viable. By combining the two, we can approach problems with a structured yet imaginative mindset, finding innovative solutions and making connections that others may overlook.

In summary, imagination and logic are two sides of the same coin when it comes to creative and critical thinking. They complement each other and work together to enhance our ability to think creatively and critically.

Balancing Intuition and Analysis

When it comes to problem-solving, finding the right balance between intuition and analysis is crucial. Intuition allows us to tap into our subconscious knowledge and make quick decisions based on gut feelings. On the other hand, analysis involves a systematic and logical approach to gather and evaluate information. Both intuition and analysis have their strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging both can lead to more effective problem-solving.

To strike a balance between intuition and analysis, consider the following:

• Trust your instincts: Pay attention to your gut feelings and initial reactions, as they can provide valuable insights.
• Gather and evaluate data: Take the time to gather relevant information and analyze it objectively.
• Seek different perspectives: Engage with others who have different viewpoints to challenge your assumptions and broaden your thinking.

Tip: Remember that finding the right balance between intuition and analysis is a dynamic process. It requires practice and reflection to develop a nuanced approach to problem-solving.

Collaboration and Individuality in Thinking

Collaboration and individuality are two key aspects of thinking that play a crucial role in both creative and critical thinking. While collaboration allows for the exchange of ideas and perspectives, individuality brings unique insights and approaches to the table. Collaboration fosters a sense of teamwork and encourages diverse thinking, which can lead to innovative solutions. On the other hand, individuality allows individuals to think independently and bring their own creativity and expertise to the problem-solving process.

In order to effectively balance collaboration and individuality in thinking, it is important to create an environment that values both. This can be achieved by promoting open communication and active listening, where team members feel comfortable sharing their ideas and opinions. Additionally, providing opportunities for individual reflection and brainstorming can help stimulate creativity and encourage unique perspectives.

To further enhance collaboration and individuality in thinking, organizations can implement strategies such as group brainstorming sessions , where team members can collectively generate ideas and build upon each other's thoughts. This encourages collaboration while also allowing individuals to contribute their own unique insights. Another strategy is to assign individual tasks within a larger project, giving team members the opportunity to work independently and bring their own creative solutions to the table.

In summary, collaboration and individuality are both essential components of thinking that contribute to creative and critical thinking processes. By fostering a balance between collaboration and individuality, organizations can harness the power of teamwork and individual creativity to drive innovation and problem-solving.

In the article section of my website, I would like to discuss the topic of 'Comparing Creative and Critical Thinking'. Creative thinking and critical thinking are two essential cognitive skills that play a significant role in problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. While creative thinking involves generating new ideas, thinking outside the box, and exploring different perspectives , critical thinking focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and questioning information to make informed judgments. Both types of thinking are crucial in today's fast-paced and complex world. By understanding the differences and similarities between creative and critical thinking, individuals can enhance their problem-solving abilities and foster a culture of innovation. If you want to learn more about the power of creative thinking and how it can transform your business, visit th website, Creativity Keynote Speaker James Taylor - Inspiring Creative Minds .

In conclusion, both creative thinking and critical thinking are essential skills that complement each other in problem-solving and decision-making. While creative thinking allows for innovative ideas and out-of-the-box solutions, critical thinking provides the necessary analysis and evaluation to ensure the feasibility and effectiveness of those ideas. Flexibility is a key aspect of creative thinking, enabling individuals to adapt and explore different perspectives, while accuracy is a fundamental element of critical thinking, ensuring logical reasoning and evidence-based conclusions. By harnessing the power of both creative and critical thinking, individuals can enhance their problem-solving abilities and make well-informed decisions in various aspects of life.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between creative thinking and critical thinking.

Creative thinking involves generating new ideas, possibilities, and solutions, while critical thinking involves analyzing, evaluating, and making reasoned judgments.

Can someone be both a creative thinker and a critical thinker?

Yes, individuals can possess both creative and critical thinking skills. They can use creative thinking to generate ideas and critical thinking to evaluate and refine those ideas.

Which is more important, creative thinking or critical thinking?

Both creative thinking and critical thinking are important and complement each other. Creative thinking generates new ideas, while critical thinking helps evaluate and implement those ideas effectively.

How can I enhance my creative thinking skills?

You can enhance your creative thinking skills by engaging in activities that stimulate your imagination, such as brainstorming, mind mapping, and exploring new perspectives.

What are some techniques for developing critical thinking skills?

Techniques for developing critical thinking skills include analyzing arguments, evaluating evidence, questioning assumptions, and considering different perspectives.

Is creative thinking limited to artistic pursuits?

No, creative thinking is not limited to artistic pursuits. It can be applied to various fields and industries, including problem-solving in science, business, technology, and more.

Popular Posts

Meilleur conférencier principal en teambuilding.

Les conférences virtuelles et les sommets peuvent être des moyens très efficaces pour inspirer, informer

Meilleur conférencier principal sur le bien-être

Les conférences sur le bien-être et la santé mentale sont essentielles pour promouvoir un environnement

Meilleur conférencier principal en communication

Les conférences virtuelles, les réunions et les sommets peuvent être un moyen très efficace d’inspirer,

Meilleur Conférencier en Stratégie

Les conférenciers en stratégie jouent un rôle crucial dans l’inspiration et la motivation des entreprises

Meilleur Conférencier Culturel

En tant que conférencier de keynote sur la culture, il est essentiel d’avoir un partenaire

Meilleur conférencier principal dans le domaine des soins de santé

Les conférenciers principaux en santé et bien-être jouent un rôle crucial dans l’industrie de la

James is a top motivational keynote speaker who is booked as a creativity and innovation keynote speaker, AI speaker , sustainability speaker and leadership speaker . Recent destinations include: Dubai , Abu Dhabi , Orlando , Las Vegas , keynote speaker London , Barcelona , Bangkok , Miami , Berlin , Riyadh , New York , Zurich , motivational speaker Paris , Singapore and San Francisco

Latest News

• 415.800.3059
• [email protected]
• Media Interviews
• Meeting Planners
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

FIND ME ON SOCIAL

© 2024 James Taylor DBA P3 Music Ltd.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Two: You are the President and CEO of You

Thinking Critically and Creatively

Dr. andrew robert baker.

Critical and creative thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. They are some of the most important skills I have ever developed. I use them everyday and continue to work to improve them both.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze a myriad of issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information? It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners, and researchers. Developing my critical thinking skills over a twenty year period as a student in higher education enabled me to complete a quantitative dissertation, including analyzing research and completing statistical analysis, and earning my Ph.D. in 2014.

While critical thinking analyzes information and roots out the true nature and facets of problems, it is creative thinking that drives progress forward when it comes to solving these problems. Exceptional creative thinkers are people that invent new solutions to existing problems that do not rely on past or current solutions. They are the ones who invent solution C when everyone else is still arguing between A and B. Creative thinking skills involve using strategies to clear the mind so that our thoughts and ideas can transcend the current limitations of a problem and allow us to see beyond barriers that prevent new solutions from being found.

Brainstorming is the simplest example of intentional creative thinking that most people have tried at least once. With the quick generation of many ideas at once we can block-out our brain’s natural tendency to limit our solution-generating abilities so we can access and combine many possible solutions/thoughts and invent new ones. It is sort of like sprinting through a race’s finish line only to find there is new track on the other side and we can keep going, if we choose. As with critical thinking, higher education both demands creative thinking from us and is the perfect place to practice and develop the skill. Everything from word problems in a math class, to opinion or persuasive speeches and papers, call upon our creative thinking skills to generate new solutions and perspectives in response to our professor’s demands. Creative thinking skills ask questions such as—What if? Why not? What else is out there? Can I combine perspectives/solutions? What is something no one else has brought-up? What is being forgotten/ignored? What about ______? It is the opening of doors and options that follows problem-identification.

Consider an assignment that required you to compare two different authors on the topic of education and select and defend one as better. Now add to this scenario that your professor clearly prefers one author over the other. While critical thinking can get you as far as identifying the similarities and differences between these authors and evaluating their merits, it is creative thinking that you must use if you wish to challenge your professor’s opinion and invent new perspectives on the authors that have not previously been considered.

So, what can we do to develop our critical and creative thinking skills? Although many students may dislike it, group work is an excellent way to develop our thinking skills. Many times I have heard from students their disdain for working in groups based on scheduling, varied levels of commitment to the group or project, and personality conflicts too, of course. True—it’s not always easy, but that is why it is so effective. When we work collaboratively on a project or problem we bring many brains to bear on a subject. These different brains will naturally develop varied ways of solving or explaining problems and examining information. To the observant individual we see that this places us in a constant state of back and forth critical/creative thinking modes.

For example, in group work we are simultaneously analyzing information and generating solutions on our own, while challenging other’s analyses/ideas and responding to challenges to our own analyses/ideas. This is part of why students tend to avoid group work—it challenges us as thinkers and forces us to analyze others while defending ourselves, which is not something we are used to or comfortable with as most of our educational experiences involve solo work. Your professors know this—that’s why we assign it—to help you grow as students, learners, and thinkers!

Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Priester is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in College: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Ji hoon park.

1 Department of Psychology, Pace University, New York, NY, United States

2 Developmental and Educational Research Center for Children's Creativity, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Heavon Allen

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Enhancing creativity and critical thinking have garnered the attention of educators and researchers for decades. They have been highlighted as essential skills for the 21st century. A total of 103 United States students (53 female, 24 male, two non-binary, and 24 non-reporting) and 166 Chinese students (128 female, 30 male, one non-binary, and seven non-reporting) completed an online survey. The survey includes the STEAM-related creative problem solving, Sternberg scientific reasoning tasks, psychological critical thinking (PCT) exam, California critical thinking (CCT) skills test, and college experience survey, as well as a demographic questionnaire. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yields a two-factor model for all creativity and critical thinking measurements. Yet, the two latent factors are strongly associated with each other ( r =0.84). Moreover, Chinese students outperform American students in measures of critical thinking, whereas Americans outperform Chinese students in measures of creativity. Lastly, the results also demonstrate that having some college research experience (such as taking research method courses) could positively influence both United States and Chinese students’ creativity and critical thinking skills. Implications are discussed.

Introduction

Creativity and critical thinking have been recognized as essential skills in the 21st century ( National Education Association, 2012 ). Many researchers and educators have focused on these two skills, including acquisition, enhancement, and performance. In addition, numerous studies have been devoted to understanding the conceptual complexities involved in creativity and critical thinking. Although similar to each other, creativity and critical thinking are distinctive by definition, each with a different emphasis.

The concept of creativity has evolved over the years. It was almost exclusively conceptualized as divergent thinking when Guilford (1956 , 1986) proposed divergent thinking as a part of intelligence. Earlier measures of creativity took the approach of divergent thinking, measuring creative potential ( Wallach and Kogan, 1965 ; Torrance, 1966 , 1988 ; Runco and Albert, 1986 ; Kim, 2005 ). In 1990s, many creativity scholars challenged the validity of tests of divergent thinking, and suggested that divergent thinking only captures the trivial sense of creativity, and proposed to use the product-oriented method to measure creativity ( Csikszentmihalyi, 1988 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ). A system model of creativity, which recognizes the important roles individual, field, and domain have played, was used as a framework to conceptualize creativity. A widely accepted definition for creativity is a person’s ability to generate an idea or product that is deemed as both novel and appropriate by experts in a field of human activities ( Scott and Bruce, 1994 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Hunter et al., 2007 ). Corazza and Lubart (2021) recently proposed a dynamic definition of creativity, in which creativity is defined as a context-embedded phenomenon that is tightly related to the cultural and social environment. Based on this new definition, measures of creativity should be context-specific and culturally relevant, especially when it is examined cross-culturally.

Similarly, the conceptualization of critical thinking has also evolved over the years. Earlier definitions emphasized the broad multidimensional aspects of critical thinking, including at least three aspects: attitude, knowledge, and skills ( Glaser, 1941 ). The definition has been evolved to include specific components for each aspect ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ). For example, critical thinking is recognized as the ability to use cognitive skills or strategies to increase the probability of a desirable outcome ( Halpern, 1999 ). More specifically, cognitive skills such as evaluation, problem-solving, reflective thinking, logical reasoning, and probability thinking are recognized as parts of critical thinking skills in research and assessments ( Ennis, 1987 , Scriven and Paul, 1987 , Halpern, 1999 ). Moving into the 21st century, metacognition and self-regulatory skills have also become essential components for critical thinking in addition to the cognitive skills recognized by earlier scholars ( Korn, 2014 , Paul and Elder, 2019 ).

Similar to the concept of creativity, critical thinking is also viewed as multidimensional and domain specific ( Bensley and Murtagh, 2012 ). For example, critical thinking in psychology, also referred to as psychological critical thinking (PCT), is defined as one’s ability to evaluate claims in a way that explicitly incorporates basic principles of psychological science ( Lawson, 1999 ). As one of the important hub sciences, psychology is often regarded as a foundational course for scientific training in American higher education ( Boyack et al., 2005 ). In psychological discourse, critical thinking is often defined in tandem with scientific thinking, which places significance on hypothesis-testing and problem-solving in order to reduce bias and erroneous beliefs ( Halpern, 1984 ; American Psychological Association, 2016 ; Lamont, 2020 ; Sternberg and Halpern, 2020 ). Based on this definition, measures of critical thinking should assess cognitive skills (i.e., evaluation, logical reasoning) and ability to utilize scientific methods for problem-solving.

In addition to the evolution of the definitions of critical thinking and creativity, research into these two concepts has led to the development of various measurements. For both concepts, there have been numerous measurements that have been studied, utilized, and improved.

The complexities associated with creativity (i.e., context-relevant and domain-specificity) pose a major issue for its measurement. Many different types of creativity measures have been developed in the past. Measures using a divergent thinking approach, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ( Torrance, 1974 ) and Alternate Uses Test ( Guilford et al., 1960 ), a product-oriented approach, a third person nomination approach, as well as a self-report approach measuring personality ( Gough, 1979 ), creative behavior ( Hocevar and Michael, 1979 ; Rodriguez-Boerwinkle et al., 2021 ), and creative achievement ( Carson et al., 2005 ; Diedrich et al., 2018 ).

Both the divergent thinking and the product-oriented approaches have been widely used in the creativity literature to objectively measure creativity. The tasks of both approaches are generally heuristic, meaning that no correct answer is expected and the process does not need to be rational. When scoring divergent thinking, the number of responses (i.e., fluency) and the rareness of the response (i.e., originality) were used to represent creativity. When scoring products using the product-orientated approach, a group of experts provides their subjective ratings on various dimensions such as originality, appropriateness, and aesthetically appealing to these products using their subjective criteria. When there is a consensus among the experts, average ratings of these expert scores are used to represent the creativity of the products. This approach is also named as Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1982 , 1996 ). Some scholars viewed the CAT approach as focusing on the convergent aspect of creativity ( Lubart et al., 2013 ). Recognizing the importance of divergent and convergent thinking in conceptualizing creativity, Lubart et al. (2013) have suggested including divergent thinking and product-oriented approach (i.e., CAT) to objective measures of creativity ( Barbot et al., 2011 ).

Similar to measures of creativity, measurements of critical thinking are also multilevel and multi-approach. In an article reviewing the construction of critical thinking in psychological studies, Lamont (2020) argues that critical thinking became a scientific object when psychologists attempted to measure it. Different from measures of creativity, where the tasks are heuristic in nature, measures of critical thinking require participants to engage in logical thinking. Therefore, the nature of critical thinking tasks is more algorithmic.

The interest in the study of critical thinking is evident in the increased efforts in the past decades to measure such a complex, multidimensional skill. Watson-Glaser Tests for Critical Thinking ( Watson and Glaser, 1938 ) is widely recognized as the first official measure of critical thinking. Since then, numerous measurements of critical thinking have been developed to evaluate both overall and domain-specific critical thinking, such as the PCT Exam ( Lawson, 1999 ; See Mueller et al., 2020 for list of assessments). A few of the most commonly used contemporary measures of critical thinking include the Watson-Glaser Test for Critical Thinking Appraisals ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ), Cornell Critical Thinking Test ( Ennis et al., 1985 ), and California Critical Thinking (CCT) Skills Test ( Facione and Facione, 1994 ). As the best established and widely used standardized critical thinking measures, these tests have been validated in various studies and have been used as a criterion for meta-analyses ( Niu et al., 2013 ; Ross et al., 2013 ).

There have also been concerns regarding the usage of these standardized measures of critical thinking on its own due to its emphasis on measuring general cognitive abilities of participants, while negating the domain-specific aspect of critical thinking ( Lamont, 2020 ). The issues associated with standardized measures are not unique to standardized critical thinking measures, as same types of criticisms have been raised for standardized college admissions measures such as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). To develop an assessment that encompasses a broader range of student abilities that is more aligned to scientific disciplines, Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) developed a scientific inquiry and reasoning measure. This measure is aimed to assess participants’ ability to utilize scientific methods and to think scientifically in order to investigate a topic or solve a problem ( Sternberg and Sternberg, 2017 ). The strength of this measure is that it assesses students’ abilities (i.e., ability to think critically) that are domain-specific and relevant to the sciences. Considering the multidimensional aspect of critical thinking, a combination of a standardized critical thinking measure, an assessment measuring cognitive abilities involved in critical thinking; and a measure that assesses domain-specific critical thinking, would provide a comprehensive evaluation of critical thinking.

The Relationship Between Creativity and Critical Thinking

Most of the studies thus far referenced have investigated creativity and critical thinking separately; however, the discussion on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking spans decades of research ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 ; Glassner and Schwartz, 2007 ; Wechsler et al., 2018 ; Akpur, 2020 ). Some earlier studies on the relationship between divergent thinking and critical thinking have observed a moderate correlation ( r =0.23, p <0.05) between the two ( Gibson et al., 1968 ). Using measures of creative personality, Gadzella and Penland (1995) also found a moderate correlation ( r =0.36, p <0.05) between creative personality and critical thinking.

Recent studies have further supported the positive correlation between critical thinking and creativity. For example, using the creative thinking disposition scale to measure creativity, Akpur (2020) found a moderate correlation between the two among college students ( r =0.27, p <0.05). Similarly, using the critical thinking disposition scale to measure critical thinking and scientific creativity scale and creative self-efficacy scale to measure creativity, Qiang et al. (2020) studied the relationship between critical thinking and creativity to a large sample of high school students ( n =1,153). They found that the relationship between the two varied depending on the type of measurement of creativity. More specifically, the correlation between critical thinking disposition and creative self-efficacy was r =0.045 ( p <0.001), whereas the correlation between critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity was r =0.15 ( p <0.01).

Recognizing the moderate relationship between the two, researchers have also aimed to study the independence of creativity and critical thinking. Some studies have found evidence that these constructs are relatively autonomous. The results of Wechsler et al. (2018) study, which aimed to investigate whether creativity and critical thinking are independent or complementary processes, found a relative autonomy of creativity and critical thinking and found that the variables were only moderately correlated. The researchers in this study suggest that a model that differentiated the two latent variables associated with creativity and critical thinking dimensions was the most appropriate method of analysis ( Wechsler et al., 2018 ). Evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are fairly independent processes was also found in study of Ling and Loh (2020) . The results of their research, which examined the relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition, revealed that creativity is a weak predictor of pattern recognition. In contrast, critical thinking is a good predictor ( Ling and Loh, 2020 ).

It is worth noting that a possible explanation for the inconsistencies in these studies’ results is the variance in the definition and the measures used to evaluate creativity and critical thinking. Based on the current literature on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, we believe that more investigation was needed to further clarify the relationship between creativity and critical thinking which became a catalyst for the current study.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Creativity and Critical Thinking Performance

Results from various cross-cultural studies suggest that there are differences in creativity and critical thinking skills among cultures. A common belief is that individuals from Western cultures are believed to be more critical and creative compared to non-Westerners, whereas individuals from non-Western cultures are believed to be better at critical thinking related tasks compared to Westerners ( Ng, 2001 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Lee et al., 2015 ). For example, Wong and Niu (2013) found a persistent cultural stereotype regarding creativity and critical thinking skills that exist cross-culturally. In their study, both Chinese and Americans believed that Chinese perform better in deductive reasoning (a skill comparable to critical thinking) and that Americans perform better on creativity. This stereotype belief was found to be incredibly persistent as participants did not change their opinions even when presented with data that contradicted their beliefs.

Interestingly, research does suggest that such a stereotype might be based on scientific evidence ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ). In the same study, it was revealed that Chinese did in fact perform better than Americans in deductive reasoning, and Americans performed better in creativity tests ( Wong and Niu, 2013 ). Similarly, Lee et al. (2015) found that compared to American students, Korean students believed that they are more prone to use receptive learning abilities (remembering and reproducing what is taught) instead of critical and creative learning abilities.

Cultural Influence on Critical Thinking

Other studies investigating the cultural influence on critical thinking have had more nuanced findings. Manalo et al. (2013) study of university students from New Zealand and Japan found that culture-related factors (self-construal, regulatory mode, and self-efficacy) do influence students’ critical thinking use. Still, the differences in those factors do not necessarily equate to differences in critical thinking. Their results found that students from Western and Asian cultural environments did not have significant differences in their reported use of critical thinking. The researchers in this study suggest that perhaps the skills and values nurtured in the educational environment have a more significant influence on students’ use of critical thinking ( Manalo et al., 2013 ).

Another study found that New Zealand European students performed better on objective measures of critical thinking than Chinese students. Still, such differences could be explained by the student’s English proficiency and not dialectical thinking style. It was also revealed in this study that Chinese students tended to rely more on dialectical thinking to solve critical thinking problems compared to the New Zealand European students ( Lun et al., 2010 ). Other research on the cultural differences in thinking styles revealed that Westerners are more likely to use formal logical rules in reasoning. In contrast, Asians are more likely to use intuitive experience-based sense when solving critical thinking problems ( Nisbett et al., 2001 ).

These studies suggest that culture can be used as a broad taxonomy to explain differences in critical thinking use. Still, one must consider the educational environment and thinking styles when studying the nature of the observed discrepancies. For instance, cultural differences in thinking style, in particular, might explain why Westerners perform better on some critical thinking measures, whereas Easterners perform better on others.

Cultural Influence on Creative Performance

Historically, creativity studies have suggested that individuals from non-Western cultures are not as creative as Westerners ( Torrance, 1974 ; Jellen and Urban, 1989 ; Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). For example, in one study, Americans generated more aesthetically pleasing artworks (as judged by both American and Chinese judges) than Chinese ( Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ). However, recent creativity research has suggested that cross-cultural differences are primarily attributable to the definition of creativity rather than the level of creativity between cultures. As aforementioned, creativity is defined as an idea or product that is both novel and appropriate. Many cross-cultural studies have found that Westerners have a preference and perform better in the novelty aspect, and Easterners have a preference and perform better in the appropriateness aspect. In cross-cultural studies, Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) found that Israelis tend to generate more original ideas than their Singaporean counterparts. In contrast, Singaporeans tend to produce more appropriate ideas. Bechtoldt et al. (2012) found in their study that Koreans generated more useful ideas, whereas Dutch students developed more original ideas. Liou and Lan (2018) found Taiwanese tend to create and select more useful ideas, whereas Americans tend to generate and choose more novel ideas. The differences in creativity preference and performance found in these studies suggest that cultural influence is a prominent factor in creativity.

In summary, cross-cultural studies have supported the notion that culture influences both creativity and critical thinking. This cultural influence seems relatively unambiguous in creativity as it has been found in multiple studies that cultural background can explain differences in performance and preference to the dual features of creativity. Critical thinking has also been influenced by culture, albeit in an opaquer nature in comparison to creativity. Critical thinking is ubiquitous in all cultures, but the conception of critical thinking and the methods used to think critically (i.e., thinking styles) are influenced by cultural factors.

Influence of College Experience on Creativity and Critical Thinking

Given its significance as a core academic ability, the hypothesis of many colleges and universities emphasize that students will gain critical thinking skills as the result of their education. Fortunately, studies have shown that these efforts have had some promising outcomes. Around 92% of students in multi-institution research reported gains in critical thinking. Only 8.9% of students believed that their critical thinking had not changed or had grown weaker ( Tsui, 1998 ). A more recent meta-analysis by Huber and Kuncel (2016) found that students make substantial gains in critical thinking during college. In addition, the efforts to enhance necessary thinking skills have led to the development of various skill-specific courses. Mill et al. (1994) found that among three groups of undergraduate students, a group that received tutorial sessions and took research methodology and statistics performed significantly better on scientific reasoning and critical thinking abilities tests than control groups. Penningroth et al. (2007) found that students who took a class in which they were required to engage in active learning and critical evaluation of claims by applying scientific concepts, had greater improvement in psychological critical thinking than students in the comparison groups. There have also been studies in which students’ scientific inquiry and critical thinking skills have improved by taking a course designed with specific science thinking and reasoning modules ( Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ).

Using a Survey of Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE), Lopatto (2004 , 2008) found that research experience can help students gain various learning skills such as ability to integrate theory and practice, ability to analyze data, skill in the interpretation of results, and understanding how scientists work on problem. All of these learning skills correspond to at least one of the dimensions mentioned earlier in the definition of critical thinking (i.e., evaluation, analytical thinking, and problem solving through). Thus, results of SURE provide evidence that critical thinking can be enhanced through research experience ( Lopatto, 2004 , 2008 ).

In comparison to critical thinking, only a few studies have examined the interaction between creativity and college experience. Previous research on STEM provides some evidence to suggest that STEM education can promote the learner’s creativity ( Land, 2013 , Guo and Woulfin, 2016 , Kuo et al., 2018 ). Notably, study of Kuo et al. (2018) suggest that project-based learning in STEM has the merits of improving one’s creativity. They found that the STEM Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning (IPBL) course is a practical approach to improve college student’s creativity ( Kuo et al., 2018 ). College research experience in particular, has been reported as important or very important by faculty and students for learning how to approach problems creatively ( Zydney et al., 2002 ).

Although specific college courses aimed to enhance creativity have been scarce, some training programs have been developed specifically to improve creativity. Scott et al. (2004) conducted a quantitative review of various creativity training and found that divergent thinking, creative problem solving, and creativity performance can be enhanced through skill-specific training programs. Embodied creativity training programs, consisting of creativity fitness exercises and intensive workshops, have also been effective in enhancing participants’ creative production and improving their creative self-efficacy ( Byrge and Tang, 2015 ).

Both critical thinking and creativity were also found to be important in students’ learning. Using a longitudinal design for one semester to 52 graduate students in biology, Siburian et al. (2019) studied how critical thinking and creative thinking contribute to improving cognitive learning skills. They found that both critical and creative thinking significantly contributes to enhancing cognitive learning skills ( R 2 =0.728). They each contribute separately to the development of cognitive learning skills ( b was 0.123 between critical thinking and cognitive learning and 0.765 between creative thinking and cognitive learning). The results from research on creativity and critical thinking indicate that training and experiences of students in college can enhance both of these skills.

Current Study

Previous literature on creativity and critical thinking suggests that there is a positive correlation between these two skills. Moreover, cultural background influences creativity and critical thinking conception and performance. However, our literature review suggests that there are only a few studies that have investigated creativity and critical thinking simultaneously to examine whether cultural background is a significant influence in performance. In addition, most of the past research on creativity and critical thinking have relied on dispositions or self-reports to measure the two skills and the investigation on the actual performance have been scarce. Lastly, past studies suggest that the acquisition and enhancement of these skills are influenced by various factors. Notably, college experience and skill-specific training have been found to improve both creativity and critical thinking. However, it is not yet clear how college experience aids in fostering creativity and critical thinking and which elements of college education are beneficial for enhancing these two skills. The cultural influence on creativity and critical thinking performance also needs further investigation.

The current study aimed to answer two questions related to this line of thought. How does culture influence creativity and critical thinking performance? How does college experience affect creativity and critical thinking? Based on past findings, we developed three hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that there is a positive association between critical thinking and creativity. Second, we suggest that college students from different countries have different levels of creativity and critical thinking. More specifically, we predicted that United States students would perform better than Chinese students on both creativity and critical thinking. Last, we hypothesized that having college research experience (through courses or research labs) will enhance creativity and critical thinking.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The study was examined by the Internal Review Board by the host university in the United States and obtained an agreement from a partner university in China to meet the ethical standard of both countries.

Participants include 103 university students from the United States and 166 university students from Mainland China. Among all participants, 181 were female (67.3%), 54 were male (20.1%), non-binary or gender fluid ( n =3, 1.1%), and some did not report their gender ( n =31, 11.5%). The majority of participants majored in social sciences ( n =197, 73.2%). Other disciplines include business and management ( n =38, 14.1%), engineering and IT ( n =20, 7.4%), and sciences ( n =14, 5.2%). A Chi-square analysis was performed to see if the background in major was different between the American and Chinese samples. The results showed that the two samples are comparable in college majors, X 2 (3, 265) =5.50, p =0.138.

The American participants were recruited through campus recruitment flyers and a commercial website called Prolific (online survey distribution website). Ethnicities of the American participants were White ( n =44, 42.7%), Asian ( n =13, 12.6%), Black or African American ( n =11, 10.7%), Hispanic or Latinos ( n =5, 4.9%), and some did not report their ethnicity ( n =30, 29.1%). The Chinese participants were recruited through online recruitment flyers. All Chinese students were of Han ethnicity.

After reviewing and signing an online consent form, both samples completed a Qualtrics survey containing creativity and critical thinking measures.

Measurements

Steam related creative problem solving.

This is a self-designed measurement, examining participant’s divergent and convergent creative thinking in solving STEAM-related real-life problems. It includes three vignettes, each depicting an issue that needs to be resolved. Participants were given a choice to pick two vignettes to which they would like to provide possible solutions for. Participants were asked to provide their answers in two parts. In the first part, participants were asked to provide as many solutions as they can think of for the problem depicted (divergent). In the second part, participants were asked to choose one of the solutions they gave in the first part that they believe is the most creative and elaborate on how they would carry out the solution (convergent).

The responses for the first part of the problem (i.e., divergent) were scored based on fluency (number of solutions given). Each participant received a score on fluency by averaging the number of solutions given across three tasks. In order to score the originality of the second part of the solution (i.e., convergent), we invited four graduate students who studied creativity for at least 1year as expert judges to independently rate the originality of all solutions. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for all three vignette solutions (0.809, 0.906, and 0.703). We then averaged the originality scores provided by the four experts to represent the originality of each solution. We then averaged the top three solutions as rated by the experts to represent the student’s performance on originality. In the end, each student received two scores on this task: fluency and originality.

Psychological Critical Thinking Exam

We adopted an updated PCT Exam developed by Lawson et al. (2015) , which made improvements to the original measure ( Lawson, 1999 ). We used PCT to measure the participants’ domain-specific critical thinking: critical thinking involved in the sciences. The initial assessment aimed to examine the critical thinking of psychology majors; however, the updated measure was developed so that it can be used to examine students’ critical thinking in a variety of majors. The split-half reliability of the revised measurement was 0.88, and test-retest reliability was 0.90 ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). Participants were asked to identify issues with a problematic claim made in two short vignettes. For example, one of the questions states:

Over the past few years, Jody has had several dreams that apparently predicted actual events. For example, in one dream, she saw a car accident and later that week she saw a van run into the side of a pickup truck. In another dream, she saw dark black clouds and lightning and 2days later a loud thunderstorm hit her neighborhood. She believes these events are evidence that she has a psychic ability to predict the future through her dreams. Could the event have occurred by chance? State whether or not there is a problem with the person’s conclusions and explain the problem (if there is one).

Responses were scored based on the rubric provided in the original measurement ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). If no problem was identified the participants would receive zero points. If a problem was recognized but misidentified, the participants would receive one point. If the main problem was identified and other less relevant problems were identified, the participants received two points. If participants identified only the main problem, they received three points. Following the rubric, four graduate students independently rated the students’ critical thinking task. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for both vignettes (0.773 and 0.712). The average of the four scores given by the experts was used as the final score for the participants.

California Critical Thinking Skills Test

This objective measure of critical thinking was developed by Facione and Facione (1994) . We used CCT to measure a few of the multidimensions of critical thinking such as evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking. Five sample items provided from Insight Assessment were used instead of the standard 40-min long CCT. Participants were presented with everyday scenarios with 4–6 answer choices. Participants were asked to make an accurate and complete interpretation of the question in order to correctly answer the question by choosing the right answer choice (each correct answer was worth one point). This test is commonly used to measure critical thinking, and previous research has reported its reliability as r =0.86 ( Hariri and Bagherinejad, 2012 ).

Sternberg Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning

This measure was developed by Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) as an assessment of scientific reasoning. We used this assessment as a domain-specific assessment to measure participants’ scientific creativity (generating testable hypotheses) and scientific critical thinking involved in generating experiments. For this two-part measure, participants were asked to read two short vignettes. For one of the vignettes, participants were asked to generate as many hypotheses as possible to explain the events described in the vignette. For the other, create an experiment to test the hypothesis mentioned in the vignette.

After carefully reviewing the measurement, we notice that the nature of the tasks in the first part of this measure (hypothesis generation) relied on heuristics, requiring participants to engage in divergent thinking. The number of valid hypotheses provided (i.e., fluency) was used to represent the performance of this task. We, therefore, deem that this part measures creativity. In contrast, the second part of the measure, experiment generation, asked participants to use valid scientific methods to design an experiment following the procedure of critical thinking such as evaluation, problem-solving, and task evaluation. Its scoring also followed algorithms so that a correct answer could be achieved. For the above reasons, we believe hypotheses generation is a measurement of creativity and experiment generation is a measurement for critical thinking.

Based on the recommended scoring manual, one graduate student calculated the fluency score from the hypothesis generation measurement. Four experts read through all students’ responses to the experiment generation. They discussed a rubric on how to score these responses, using a four-point scale, with a “0” representing no response or wrong response, a “1” representing partially correct, a “2” representing correct response. An additional point (the three points) was added if the participant provided multiple design methods. Based on the above rubric, the four experts independently scored this part of the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the four expert ratings was 0.792. The average score of the four judges was used to represent their critical thinking scores on this task.

College Experience Survey

Participants were asked about their past research experience, either specifically in psychology or in general academia. Participants were asked to choose between three choices: no research experience, intermediate research experience (i.e., research work for class, research work for lab), and advanced research experience (i.e., professional research experience, published works).

Demographic and Background Questionnaire

Series of standard demographic questions were asked, including participants’ age, gender, and ethnicity.

We performed a Pearson correlation to examine the relationship between creativity and critical thinking (the two-c), which include performances on three measures on creativity ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ) and three measures on critical thinking ( experiment generation , CCT , and PCT ).

Most of the dependent variables had a significantly positive correlation. The only insignificant correlation was found between Sternberg hypothesis generation and CCT, r (247) =0.024, p =0.708 (see Table 1 ).

Correlation coefficients for study variables.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted by applying SEM through AMOS 21 software program and the maximum likelihood method. One-factor and two-factor models have been analyzed, respectively (see Figure 1 ).

The comparison of the two confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models: one-factor vs. two-factor.

As it is demonstrated in Table 2 , the value ranges of the most addressed fit indices used in the analysis of SEM are presented. Comparing two models, χ 2 /df of the two-factor model is in a good fit, while the index of the one-factor model is in acceptable fit. The comparison of the two models suggest that the two-factor model is a better model than the one-factor model.

Recommended values for evaluation and the obtained values.

RMSEA,root mean square error of approximation; NFI, normed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness-of-fit index; and AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit-index ( Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003 ).

Cross-Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking and Creativity

We conducted a 2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking) ANOVA to investigate the cultural differences in critical thinking and creativity. We averaged scores of three critical thinking measurement ( experiment generation , PCT , and CCT ) to represent critical thinking and averaged three creativity scores ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ).

This analysis revealed a significant main effect for the type of thinking (i.e., creative vs. critical thinking), F (1,247) =464.77, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.653. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and type of thinking, F (1,247) =62.00, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.201. More specifically, Chinese students ( M =1.32, SD =0.59) outperformed American students ( M =1.02, SD =0.44) on critical thinking. In contrast, American students ( M =2.59, SD =1.07) outperformed Chinese students ( M =2.05, SD =0.83) on creativity.

Influence of Research Experience on Critical Thinking and Creativity

The last hypothesis states that having college research experience (through courses or research lab) would enhance students’ creativity and critical thinking from both countries. We performed a 2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking)×2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×3 (Research Experience: Advanced vs. Some vs. No) ANOVA to test this hypothesis. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for research experience, F (2,239) =4.05, p =0.019, η p 2 =0.033. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and research experience, F (2,239) =5.77, p =0.004, η p 2 =0.046. In addition, there was a three-way interaction among country, two-C, and research experience. More specifically, with an increase of research experience for American students, both critical thinking and creativity improved. In contrast, for Chinese students, the impact of research experience was not significant for creativity. However, some research experience positively impacted Chinese students’ critical thinking (see Figure 2 ).

Estimated marginal means of Two-C for the United States and Chinese samples.

The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, how culture influences creativity and critical thinking, and how college research experience affects creativity and critical thinking. Our results supported the first hypothesis regarding the positive correlation among all of the dependent variables. The mean correlation between the measures of creativity and critical thinking was 0.230. This result was in line with the findings from previous research ( Gibson et al., 1968 ; Gadzella and Penland, 1995 ; Siburian et al., 2019 ; Akpur, 2020 ; Qiang et al., 2020 ). Moreover, our confirmatory factor analysis yielded similar results as analysis of Wechsler et al. (2018) and Akpur (2020) and provides more evidence of the relative independence between creativity and critical thinking. We found that at the latent variable level, the two skills are highly correlated to each other ( r =0.84). In addition, we found that although the one-factor model was an acceptable fit, a two-factor model was a better fit for analysis. This result suggests that despite the correlation between creativity and critical thinking, the two skills should be studied as separate factors for an appropriate and comprehensive analysis.

The results of this study partially confirmed our second hypothesis and replicated the findings from past studies ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Lun et al., 2010 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). As predicted, there was a significant main effect for culture in students’ performance for all six measures in the two-C analysis model. United States students performed better than Chinese students in all three creativity measures, and Chinese students performed better than United States students in all critical thinking measures. Given the diversity in the type of measures used in this study, the results suggest that United States and Chinese students’ performance aligns with the stereotype belief found in study of Wong and Niu (2013) . The findings from the current study suggest that the stereotype belief observed in both United States and Chinese students (United States students generally perform better on creativity tasks, while Chinese students perform typically better on critical thinking tasks) is not entirely unfounded. Furthermore, the clear discrepancy in performance between United States and Chinese students provides more evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are relatively autonomous skills. Although, a high correlation between these two skills was found in our study, the fact that students from two different cultures have two different development trajectories in critical thinking and creativity suggests that these two skills are relatively autonomous.

Lastly, the results also confirmed our third hypothesis, that is, college research experience did have a positive influence on students’ creativity and critical thinking. Compared to students with no research experience, students with some research experience performed significantly better in all measures of creativity and critical thinking. This finding is consistent with the previous literature ( Mill et al., 1994 ; Penningroth et al., 2007 ; Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ; Kuo et al., 2018 ). The result of our study suggests that college research experience is significant to enhance both creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes a more essential component of college education, our results suggest that it not only can add credential for applying to graduate school or help students learn skills specific to research, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking. Furthermore, it is worth noting that this nature held true for both Chinese and American students. To our knowledge, this is a first investigation examining the role of research experience in both creativity and critical thinking cross-culturally.

In addition to the report of our findings, we would like to address some limitations of our study. First, we would like to note that this is a correlational and cross-sectional study. A positive correlation between research experience and the two dependent variables does not necessarily mean causation. Our results indeed indicate a positive correlation between research experience and the two-C variables; however, we are not sure of the nature of this relationship. It is plausible that students with higher creativity and critical thinking skills are more engaged in research as much as it is to argue in favor of a reversed directional relationship. Second, we would like to note the sample bias in our study. Majority of our participants were female, majoring in the social sciences and a relatively high number of participants chose not to report their gender. Third, we would like to note that our study did not measure all creativity and critical thinking dimensions, we discussed in the introduction. Instead, we focused on a few key dimensions of creativity and critical thinking. Our primary focus was on divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and scientific creativity as well as few key dimensions of critical thinking (evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking), scientific critical thinking involved in problem solving and hypothesis testing. Moreover, our results do not show what specific components of research training are beneficial for the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking.

For future research, a longitudinal design involving a field experiment will help investigate how different research training components affect the development of creativity and critical thinking. In addition, a cross-cultural study can further examine how and why the students from different cultures differ from each other in the development of these two potentials. As such, it might shed some light on the role of culture in creativity and critical thinking.

Conclusion and Implication

The result of our study provides few insights to the study of creativity and critical thinking. First, creativity and critical thinking are a different construct yet highly correlated. Second, whereas Americans perform better on creativity measures, Chinese perform better on critical thinking measures. Third, for both American and Chinese students, college research experience is a significant influence on the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes more and more essential to college education, its role can not only add professional and postgraduate credentials, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking.

Based on our results, we recommend that research training be prioritized in higher education. Moreover, each culture has strengths to develop one skill over the other, hence, each culture could invest more in developing skills that were found to be weaker in our study. Eastern cultures can encourage more creativity and Western cultures can encourage more critical thinking.

To conclude, we would like to highlight that, although recognized globally as essential skills, methods to foster creativity and critical thinking skills and understanding creativity and critical thinking as a construct requires further research. Interestingly, our study found that experience of research itself can help enhance creativity and critical thinking. Our study also aimed to expand the knowledge of creativity and critical thinking literature through an investigation of the relationship of the two variables and how cultural background influences the performance of these two skills. We hope that our findings can provide insights for researchers and educators to find constructive methods to foster students’ essential 21st century skills, creativity and critical thinking, to ultimately enhance their global competence and life success.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board at Pace University. The participants provided their informed consent online prior to participating in the study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication., conflict of interest.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

This work was supported by the International Joint Research Project of Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (ICER201904), and a scholarly research funding by Pace University.

• Akpur U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement . Think. Skills Creat. 37 :100683. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43 , 997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity. ” Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychological Association (2016). Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: version 2.0 . Am. Psychol. 71 , 102–111. doi: 10.1037/a0037562, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbot B., Besançon M., Lubart T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom . Open Educ. J. 4 , 58–66. doi: 10.2174/1874920801104010058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barron F., Harrington D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32 , 439–476. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bechtoldt M., Choi H., Nijstad A. B. (2012). Individuals in mind, mates by heart: individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 , 838–844. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. A., Murtagh M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment . Teach. Psychol. 39 , 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0098628311430642 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyack K. W., Klavans R., Börner K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science . Scientometrics 64 , 351–374. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrge C., Tang C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production . Think. Skills Creat. 16 , 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson S. H., Peterson J. B., Higgins D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire . Creat. Res. J. 17 , 37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corazza G. E., Lubart T. (2021). Intelligence and creativity: mapping constructs on the space-time continuum . J. Intell. 9 :1. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9010001, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Csikszentmihalyi M. (1988). “ Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity ” in The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press; ), 325–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csikszentmihalyi M. (1999). “ Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity ” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 313–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diedrich J., Jauk E., Silvia P. J., Gredlein J. M., Neubauer A. C., Benedek M. (2018). Assessment of real-life creativity: the inventory of creative activities and achievements (ICAA) . Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12 , 304–316. doi: 10.1037/aca0000137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. (1987). “ A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities ” in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. eds. Baron J. B., Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.), 9–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H., Millman J., Tomko T. N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level x and Level z Manual. 3rd Edn . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A., Facione N. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Test Manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadzella B. M., Penland E. (1995). Is creativity related to scores on critical thinking? Psychol. Rep. 77 , 817–818. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.817 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson J. W., Kibler R. J., Barker L. L. (1968). Some relationships between selected creativity and critical thinking measures . Psychol. Rep. 23 , 707–714. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3.707, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glassner A., Schwartz B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Think. Skills Creat. 2 , 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 , 1398–1405. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guilford J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect . Psychol. Bull. 53 , 267–293. doi: 10.1037/h0040755, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guilford J. P. (1986). Creative Talents: Their Nature, Uses and Development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guilford J. P., Christensen P. R., Merrifield P. R., Wilson R. C. (1960). Alternate Uses Manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo J., Woulfin S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: an investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity . Roeper Rev. 38 , 153–161. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D. F. (1984). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker . New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1999 , 69–74. doi: 10.1002/tl.8005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hariri N., Bagherinejad Z. (2012). Evaluation of critical thinking skills in students of health faculty, Mazandaran university of medical sciences . J. Mazand. Univ. Med. Sci. 21 , 166–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hocevar D., Michael W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 39 , 917–921. doi: 10.1177/001316447903900427 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber C. R., Kuncel N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis . Rev. Educ. Res. 86 , 431–468. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter S. T., Bedell K. E., Mumford M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: a quantitative review . Creat. Res. J. 19 , 69–90. doi: 10.1080/10400410709336883 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jellen H. U., Urban K. (1989). Assessing creative potential worldwide: the first cross-cultural application of the test for creative thinking–drawing production (TCT–DP) . Gifted Educ. 6 , 78–86. doi: 10.1177/026142948900600204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis . J. Sec. Gifted Educ. 16 , 57–66. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2005-473 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korn M. (2014). Bosses Seek ‘Critical Thinking,’ but What Is That? Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://online.wsj.com/articles/bosses-seek-critical-thinking-but-what-is-that-1413923730 (Accessed October 18, 2021).
• Kuo H.-C., Tseng Y.-C., Yang Y.-T. C. (2018). Promoting college student's learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course . Think. Skills Creat. 31 , 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont P. (2020). The construction of "critical thinking": between how we think and what we believe . Hist. Psychol. 23 , 232–251. doi: 10.1037/hop0000145, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Land M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: the benefits of integrating the arts into STEM . Compl. Adapt. Syst. 20 , 547–552. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawson T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for psychology majors . Teach. Psychol. 26 , 207–209. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP260311 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawson T. J., Jordan-Fleming M. K., Bodle J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking . Teach. Psychol. 42 , 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee H.-J., Lee J., Makara K. A., Fishman B. J., Hong Y. I. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 34 , 131–146. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.892477 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ling M. K. D., Loh S. C. (2020). Relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition among Singapore private school students . J. Educ. Res. 113 , 59–76. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1716203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liou S., Lan X. (2018). Situational salience of norms moderates cultural differences in the originality and usefulness of creative ideas generated or selected by teams . J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49 , 290–302. doi: 10.1177/0022022116640897 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings . Cell Biol. Educ. 3 , 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto D. (2008). “ Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences: The SURE survey ” in Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science eds. R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton (New York: Teachers College Press; ), 112–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubart T., Zenasni F., Barbot B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement . Int. J. Talent Dev. Creat. 1 , 41–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lun V. M.-C., Fischer R., Ward C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 604–616. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manalo E., Kusumi T., Koyasu M., Michita Y., Tanaka Y. (2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students' critical thinking use? Think. Skills Creat. 10 , 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mill D., Gray T., Mandel D. R. (1994). Influence of research methods and statistics courses on everyday reasoning, critical abilities, and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena . Can. J. Behav. Sci. 26 , 246–258. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.26.2.246 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mueller J. F., Taylor H. K., Brakke K., Drysdale M., Kelly K., Levine G. M., et al.. (2020). Assessment of scientific inquiry and critical thinking: measuring APA goal 2 student learning outcomes . Teach. Psychol. 47 , 274–284. doi: 10.1177/0098628320945114 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Education Association (2012). Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An educator's Guide to the "Four Cs". Alexandria, VA: National Education Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng A.K. (2001). Why Asians Are less Creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisbett R. E., Peng K., Choi I., Norenzayan A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition . Psychol. Rev. 108 , 291–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niu L., Behar-Horenstein L. S., Garvan C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students' critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis . Educ. Res. Rev. 9 , 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niu W., Sternberg R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation . Int. J. Psychol. 36 , 225–241. doi: 10.1080/00207590143000036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niu W., Zhang J. X., Yang Y. (2007). Deductive reasoning and creativity: a cross-cultural study . Psychol. Rep. 100 , 509–519. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.2.509-519, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul R., Elder L. (2019). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. 8th Edn . Lanham, MD: Foundation for Critical Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Penningroth S. L., Despain L. H., Gray M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking . Teach. Psychol. 34 , 153–157. doi: 10.1080/00986280701498509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiang R., Han Q., Guo Y., Bai J., Karwowski M. (2020). Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: the mediating role of creative self-efficacy . J. Creat. Behav. 54 , 90–99. doi: 10.1002/jocb.347 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rockstuhl T., Ng K.-Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams . In Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. (eds.) Ang S., Dyne L.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 206–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez-Boerwinkle R., Silvia P., Kaufman J. C., Reiter-Palmon R., Puryear J. S. (2021). Taking inventory of the creative behavior inventory: an item response theory analysis of the CBI. [Preprint]. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/b7cfd [ CrossRef ]
• Ross D., Loeffler K., Schipper S., Vandermeer B., Allan G. M. (2013). Do scores on three commonly used measures of critical thinking correlate with academic success of health professions trainees? A systematic review and meta-analysis . Acad. Med. 88 , 724–734. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828b0823, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runco M. A., Albert R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: an empirical test with gifted and nongifted children . Creat. Child Adult Q. 11 , 212–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schermelleh-Engel K., Moosbrugger H., Müller H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures . Methods of Psychological Research 8 , 23–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott S. G., Bruce R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace . Acad. Manag. J. 37 , 580–607. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott G., Leritz L. E., Mumford M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review . Creat. Res. J. 16 , 361–388. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scriven M., Paul R. (1987). Defining Critical Thinking. In 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform ; August 2–5, 1987.
• Siburian J., Corebima A. D., Ibrohim, Saptasari M. (2019). The correlation between critical and creative thinking skills on cognitive learning results . Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 19 , 99–114. doi: 10.14689/EJER.2019.81.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Halpern D. F. (eds.) (2020). Critical Thinking in Psychology. 2nd Edn . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Lubart T. I. (1999). “ The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms ” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 3–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Sternberg K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines . J. Intell. 5 , 29. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5030029, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens C., Witkow M. R. (2014). Training scientific thinking skills: evidence from an MCAT 2015 aligned classroom module . Teach. Psychol. 41 , 115–121. doi: 10.1177/0098628314530341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens C., Witkow M. R., Smelt B. (2016). Strengthening scientific reasoning skills in introductory psychology: evidence from community college and liberal arts classrooms . Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2 , 245–260. doi: 10.1037/stl0000070 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang M., Werner C., Cao G., Tumasjan A., Shen J., Shi J., et al.. (2015). Creative expression and its evaluation on work-related verbal tasks: a comparison of Chinese and German samples . J. Creat. Behav. 52 , 91–103. doi: 10.1002/jocb.134 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking: Norms–Technical Manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P. (1988). “ The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing ” in The Nature of Creativity. ed. Sternberg R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press; ), 43–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui L. (1998). Fostering Critical Thinking in College Students: A Mixed-Methods Study of Influences Inside and Outside of the Classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9917229)
• Wallach M. A., Kogan N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson G. B., Glaser E. M. (1938). The Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Institute for Propaganda Analysis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson G. B., Glaser E. M. (1980). WGCTA Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual: Forms A and B. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler S. M., Saiz C., Rivas S. F., Vendramini C. M. M., Almeida L. S., Mundim M. C., et al.. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: independent or overlapping components? Think. Skills Creat. 27 , 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong R., Niu W. (2013). Cultural difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity . J. Creat. Behav. 47 , 41–59. doi: 10.1002/jocb.22 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zydney A. L., Bennett J. S., Shahid A., Bauer K. W. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering . J. Eng. Educ. 91 , 291–297. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00706.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Enhancing students’ critical thinking and creative thinking: An integrated mind mapping and robot-based learning approach

• Published: 16 May 2024

Cite this article

• Min-Chi Chiu 1 , 2 &
• Gwo-Jen Hwang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5155-276X 3 , 4  

Fostering students’ critical thinking and creative thinking is an important aim in education. For example, art courses not only focus on artwork creation, but also on theoretical knowledge for identifying artworks. In the conventional lecture-based instruction mode for theoretical knowledge delivery, students’ learning outcomes could be affected owing to the lack of student-teacher interactions, and hence researchers have started to employ interactive learning technologies, such as robots, to cope with this problem. However, without proper guidance and support, students’ learning outcomes in such an interactive learning mode could be limited. To improve students’ learning effectiveness, this study proposed a mind mapping-assisted robot (MM-R) approach for an art course. A quasi-experimental design was adopted to explore the effects of the proposed learning approach on students’ performance in art appreciation, digital painting creation, creative thinking tendency, and critical thinking awareness. A total of 48 students from two classes in a university in central Taiwan were recruited to participate in this study. One class was the experimental group ( n  = 25) adopting the MM-R approach, while the other class was the control group ( n  = 23) adopting the conventional robot (C-R) approach. The results indicated that the integration of the MM-R approach improved students’ learning achievement, performance in digital painting creation, creative thinking tendency, and critical thinking awareness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Arts and crafts robots or LEGO® MINDSTORMS robots? A comparative study in educational robotics

A Learning Environment for Geography and History Using Mixed Reality, Tangible Interfaces and Educational Robotics

Learning Robotics in a Science Museum Theatre Play: Investigation of Learning Outcomes, Contexts and Experiences

Data availability.

The data and materials are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Abd Karim, R., & Abu, A. G. (2018). Using mobile-assisted mind mapping technique (mammat) to improve writing skills of esl students. Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 1 (2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.26666/rmp.jssh.2018.2.1

Article   Google Scholar  

Abd Karim, R., & Mustapha, R. (2022). TVET student’s perception on digital mind map to stimulate learning of technical skills in Malaysia. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 14 (1), 1–13.

Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of Lego mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7 (6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908

Alam, A. (2022). Employing adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring robots for virtual classrooms and smart campuses: Reforming education in the age of artificial intelligence. In Advanced Computing and Intelligent Technologies , 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2980-9_32

Alkhatib, O. J. (2019, March 1–8). A framework for implementing higher-order thinking skills (problem-solving, critical thinking, creative thinking, and decision-making) in engineering & humanities . In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), IEEE.

An, J. S., & Huh, Y. J. (2019). Effect of creative thinking through art collaboration class. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 10 (7), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.7.121

Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). Palgrave Macmillan US.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Astrodjojo, D. R. (2018). The development of teaching materials using learning cycle 5E to increase critical thinking skills and students learning outcome of high school students on the subject of reaction rate. JPPS (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains), 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.26740/jpps.v8n1.p%25p

Aykac, V. (2015). An application regarding the availability of mind maps in visual art education based on active learning method. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174 , 1859–1866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.848

Bezanilla, M. J., Domínguez, H. G., & Ruiz, M. P. (2021). Importance and possibilities of development of critical thinking in the university: The teacher’s perspective. REMIE: Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 11 (1), 20–48.

Bhuvaneswari, T., & Beh, S. L. (2013). Changes in teaching and learning through digital media for higher education institutions. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2 (3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2008.020315

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (2012). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. Electronic collaborators (pp. 25–50). Routledge.

Bravo, F. A., Hurtado, J. A., & González, E. (2021). Using robots with storytelling and drama activities in science education. Education Sciences, 11 (7), 329.

Bravo Sánchez, F. Á, González Correal, A. M., & Guerrero, E. G. (2017). Interactive drama with robots for teaching non-technical subjects. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 6 (2), 48–69.

Brown, G. T., & Wang, Z. (2013). Illustrating assessment: How Hong Kong university students conceive of the purposes of assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (7), 1037–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.616955

Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2002). How to mind map . Thorsons.

Google Scholar  

Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2006). The mind map book . Pearson Education.

Bybee, R. W., & Trowbridge, J. H. (1990). Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step guide for motivating students . Cambridge University Press.

Carless, D., & Lam, R. (2014). The examined life: Perspectives of lower primary school students in Hong Kong. Education 3–13, 42 (3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.689988

Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16 (3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9379-4

Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1572–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.023

Chang, C. Y., Panjaburee, P., Lin, H. C., Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. H. (2022). Effects of online strategies on students’ learning performance, self-efficacy, self-regulation and critical thinking in university online courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70 (1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10071-y

Chao, J. Y., Liu, C. H., & Kao, H. C. (2023). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum Design for Teaching Mathematical Concept of Perspective at Indigenous Elementary School using Robots. Sensors and Materials, 35 (5), 1547–1556.

Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136 , 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.233

Chen, C. H., & Chung, H. Y. (2023). Fostering computational thinking and problem-solving in programming: Integrating Concept maps into Robot Block-based programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231205052

Chen, X., Cheng, G., Zou, D., Zhong, B., & Xie, H. (2023). Artificial Robots for Precision Education. Educational Technology & Society, 26 (1), 171–186.

Chen Hsieh, J. (2022). Multimodal Digital Storytelling Presentations among Middle-School learners of English as a Foreign Language: Emotions, grit and perceptions. RELC Journal . https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221102233

Chin, K. Y., Hong, Z. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7 (4), 333–345.

Chiu, M. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2022). Roles, applications, and research designs of robots in science education: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of journal publications from 1996 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2129392

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cristea, A. D., Berdie, A. D., Osaci, M., & Chirtoc, D. (2011). The advantages of using mind map for learning web dynpro. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19 (1), 201–207.

Cruickshank, D. (1996). The ‘art’of reflection: Using drawing to uncover knowledge development in student nurses. Nurse Education Today, 16 (2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(96)80069-4

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62 (3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

Deaver, S. P. (2012). Art-based learning strategies in art therapy graduate education. Art Therapy, 29 (4), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2012.730029

Debbag, M., Cukurbasi, B., & Fidan, M. (2021). Use of digital mind maps in technology education: A pilot study with pre-service science teachers. Informatics in Education, 20 (1), 47–68.

Dewey, J. (1934). In J. Boydston (Ed.), Art as experience, reprinted in 1989, John dewey: The later works, 1925–1953. (Vol. 10). Southern Illinois University.

Dong, Y., Zhu, S., & Li, W. (2021). Promoting sustainable creativity: An empirical study on the application of mind mapping tools in graphic design education. Sustainability, 13 (10), 5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105373

Dorouka, P., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020). Tablets and apps for promoting robotics, mathematics, STEM education and literacy in early childhood education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14 (2), 255–274.

Dumitru, D. (2019). Creating meaning. The importance of arts, humanities and Culture for critical thinking development. Studies in Higher Education, 44 (5), 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1586345

Edwards, S., & Cooper, N. (2010). Mind mapping as a teaching resource. The Clinical Teacher, 7 (4), 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2010.00395.x

Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Lin, X. (2018). I, teacher: Using artificial intelligence (AI) and social robots in communication and instruction. Communication Education, 67 (4), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1502459

Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5 (3), 202–210.

Evripidou, S., Amanatiadis, A., Christodoulou, K., & Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2021). Introducing algorithmic thinking and sequencing using tangible robots. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14 (1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3058060

Fadillah, R. (2019). STUDENTS’perception on the use of mind mapping application software in learning writing. Celtic: A Journal of Culture English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics, 6 (1), 58–64.

Fan, X., & Zhong, X. (2022). Artificial intelligence-based creative thinking skill analysis model using human–computer interaction in art design teaching. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 100 , 107957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.107957

Fish, B. J. (2019). Response art in art therapy: Historical and contemporary overview. Art Therapy, 36 (3), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2019.1648915

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness (Vol. 1). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Fridin, M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: A tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Computers & Education, 70 , 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.043

Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Zhang, L. (2019). Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers & Education, 137 , 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005

Gerecke, U., & Wagner, B. (2007). The challenges and benefits of using robots in higher education. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 13 (1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10798587.2007.10642948

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge.

Goldstain, O. H., Ben-Gal, I., & Bukchin, Y. (2011). Evaluation of telerobotic interface components for teaching robot operation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4 (4), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2011.19

Goldston, M. J., Day, J. B., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of a 5E learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8 (4), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9178-7

Hardiman, M. M., JohnBull, R. M., Carran, D. T., & Shelton, A. (2019). The effects of arts-integrated instruction on memory for science content. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 14 , 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.02.002

Hayadi, B. H., Bastian, A., Rukun, K., Jalius, N., Lizar, Y., & Guci, A. (2018). Expert system in the application of learning models with forward chaining method. International Journal of Engineering Technology, 7 (2.29), 845–848.

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47 , 659–676.

Hidayati, N., Zubaidah, S., Suarsini, E., & Praherdhiono, H. (2019). Examining the relationship between creativity and critical thinking through integrated problem-based learning and digital mind maps. Universal Journal of Education Research , 7 (9A), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071620

Ho, T. K. L., & Lin, H. S. (2015). A web-based painting tool for enhancing student attitudes toward learning art creation. Computers & Education, 89 , 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.015

Howitt, C. (2009). 3-D mind maps: Placing young children in the centre of their own learning. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association , 55 (2).

Hölling, H. (2016). The aesthetics of change: on the relative durations of the impermanent and critical thinking in conservation. Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation, 13–24.

Hsu, T. C., & Chen, M. S. (2022). The engagement of students when learning to use a personal audio classifier to control robot cars in a computational thinking board game. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00202-1

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Huang, Z. M. (2021). Exploring imagination as a methodological source of knowledge: Painting students’ intercultural experience at a UK university. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44 (4), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1796958

Hutson, J., & Olsen, T. (2022). Virtual reality and art history: A case study of digital humanities and immersive learning environments. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22 (2).

Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Education, 53 (2), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.016

Hwang, G. J., Lee, H. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2019). Lessons learned from integrating concept mapping and gaming approaches into learning scenarios using mobile devices: Analysis of an activity for a geology course. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 13 (3), 286–308.

Ishiguro, C., & Okada, T. (2022). How can inspiration be encouraged in art learning? Arts-based methods in education around the world (pp. 205–230). River.

Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10 (4), 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040905

Kalaitzidou, M., & Pachidis, T. P. (2023). Recent robots in STEAM Education. Education Sciences, 13 (3), 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030272

Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design studies, 29 (1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001

Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human–Computer Interaction, 19 (1–2), 61–84.

Köhler, C., Hartig, J., & Naumann, A. (2021). Detecting instruction effects-deciding between covariance analytical and change-score approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33 , 1191–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09590-6

Kotcherlakota, S., Zimmerman, L., & Berger, A. M. (2013). Developing scholarly thinking using mind maps in graduate nursing education. Nurse educator , 27 (6), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNE.0000435264.15495.51

Konijn , E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2020). Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Computers & Education , 157 , 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103970

Kuo, Y. T., Garcia Bravo, E., Whittinghill, D. M., & Kuo, Y. C. (2023). Walking into a modern painting: The impacts of using virtual reality on student learning performance and experiences in art appreciation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2278929

Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem-solving, meta-cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8 (3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2014.067029

Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85 , 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011

Lee, C. S., Wang, M. H., Kuan, W. K., Huang, S. H., Tsai, Y. L., Ciou, Z. H., Yang, C. K., & Kubota, N. (2021). BCI-based hit-loop agent for human and AI robot co-learning with AIoT application. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03487-0

Liang, J. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2023). A robot-based digital storytelling approach to enhancing EFL learners’ multimodal storytelling ability and narrative engagement. Computers & Education, 201 , 104827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104827

Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., Fu, Q. K., & Chen, J. F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21 (3), 117–131.

Lin, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Hsu, Y. D. (2019). Effects of ASQ-based flipped learning on nurse practitioner learners’ nursing skills, learning achievement and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 139 , 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.014

Liu, H., Sheng, J., & Zhao, L. (2022). Innovation of teaching tools during robot programming learning to promote middle school students’ critical thinking. Sustainability, 14 (11), 6625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116625

Malycha, C. P., & Maier, G. W. (2017). Enhancing creativity on different complexity levels by eliciting mental models. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 11 (2), 187. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000080

Mernick, A. (2021). Critical arts pedagogy: Nurturing critical consciousness and self-actualization through art education. Art Education, 74 (5), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2021.1928468

Meyer, T. (2017). Next art education: Eight theses future art educators should think about. International Journal of Education through Art, 13 (3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.13.3.369_1

Mijwil, M. M., Aggarwal, K., Mutar, D. S., Mansour, N., & Singh, R. (2022). The position of artificial intelligence in the future of education: an overview. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (2).

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Moraiti, I., Fotoglou, A., & Drigas, A. (2022). Coding with block programming languages in educational robotics and mobiles, improve problem solving, creativity & critical thinking skills. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies , 16 (20). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i20.34247

 Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning , 1 (209 – 0015), 13. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

Nurkhin, A., & Pramusinto, H. (2020). Problem-based learning strategy: Its impact on students’ critical and creative thinking skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 9 (3), 1141–1150.

O’Connell, R. M. (2014). Mind mapping for critical thinking. In Cases on teaching critical thinking through visual representation strategies , 354–386. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5816-5.ch014

Oreck, B. (2004). The artistic and professional development of teachers: A study of teachers’ attitudes toward and use of the arts in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 55 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260072

Otukile-Mongwaketse, M. (2018). Teacher centered approaches: Their implications for today’s inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Psychoogy and Counseling, 10 (2), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPC2016.0393

Park, Y. S. (2023). Creative and critical entanglements with AI in Art Education. Studies in Art Education, 64 (4), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2255084

Patton, R. M., & Buffington, M. L. (2016). Keeping up with our students: The evolution of technology and standards in art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 117 (3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.944961

Ramdani, A., Jufri, A. W., Gunawan, G., Fahrurrozi, M., & Yustiqvar, M. (2021). Analysis of students’ critical thinking skills in terms of gender using Science Teaching materials based on the 5E learning cycle Integrated with local Wisdom. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10 (2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.29956

Rim, H., Choi, I., & Noh, S. (2014). A study on the application of robotic programming to promote logical and critical thinking in mathematics education. The Mathematical Education, 53 (3), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2014.53.3.413

Ryu, H. J., Kwak, S. S., & KIM, M. S. (2008). Design factors for external form of robots as elementary school teaching assistants. Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 54 (6), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.11247/jssdj.54.39_3

Sajnani, N., Mayor, C., & Tillberg-Webb, H. (2020). Aesthetic presence: The role of the arts in the education of creative arts therapists in the classroom and online. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 69 , 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2020.101668

Sari, R., Sumarmi, S., Astina, I., Utomo, D., & Ridhwan, R. (2021). Increasing students critical thinking skills and learning motivation using inquiry mind map. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16 (3), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i03.16515

Saunders, G., & Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning environment: Reasons for and risks of success. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4 (1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787403004001006

Setiawan, I. W. P., Suartama, I. K., & Putri, D. A. W. M. (2017). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 5e Berbantuan Mind Mapping Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika. Mimbar PGSD Undiksha, 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.23887/jjpgsd.v5i2.10841

Štuikys, V., & Burbaitė, R. (2018). Smart devices and educational robotics as technology for STEM knowledge. Springer , 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78485-4_3

Sun, M., Wang, M., & Wegerif, R. (2019). Using computer-based cognitive mapping to improve students’ divergent thinking for creativity development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (5), 2217–2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12825

Sun, Q., Lu, Z., & Ren, X. (2023). The influence of humanities on art and design learning performance: An empirical study. International Journal of Art & Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12474

Ulger, K. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning on the creative thinking and critical thinking disposition of students in visual arts education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12 (1).

Usengül, L., & Bahçeci, F. (2020). The Effect of LEGO WeDo 2.0 education on academic achievement and attitudes and computational thinking skills of Learners toward Science. World Journal of Education, 10 (4), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p83

Utami, D., & Subali, B. (2019, October). The effectiveness of 5E learning cycle accompanied by mind mapping on creative thinking. In Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference Education Culture and Technology, ICONECT 2019, 20–21 August 2019, Kudus, Indonesia .

Van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Van der Ven, S., & Leseman, P. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89 (2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286

Ververi, C., Koufou, T., Moutzouris, A., & Andreou, L. V. (2020, April 20–21). Introducing robotics to an English for academic purposes curriculum in higher education: The student experience . In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Porto, Portugal.

Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3 (1), 125–131.

Westlund, J. K., & Breazeal, C. (2015, March 65–66). The interplay of robot language level with children’s language learning during storytelling. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts, New York, United States.

Woolf, B., Burleson, W., Arroyo, I., Dragon, T., Cooper, D., & Picard, R. (2009). Affect-aware tutors: Recognising and responding to student affect. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4 (3–4), 129–164. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2009.028804

Wu, H. Z., & Wu, Q. T. (2020). Impact of mind mapping on the critical thinking ability of clinical nursing students and teaching application. Journal of International Medical Research, 48 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060519893225

Wu, W. L., Hsu, Y., Yang, Q. F., Chen, J. J., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2021). Effects of the self-regulated strategy within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on students’ learning performances in an art history class. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1878231

Yang, J., & Zhang, B. (2019). Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring robots: A systematic review and design guidelines. Applied Sciences , 9 (10), 2078. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9102078

Yang, Q. F., Lian, L. W., & Zhao, J. H. (2023). Developing a gamified artificial intelligence educational robot to promote learning effectiveness and behavior in laboratory safety courses for undergraduate students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9

Yu, F. Y., & Liu, Y. H. (2005). Potential values of incorporating a multiple-choice question construction in physics experimentation instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (11), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500102854

Yuliyanto, A., Basit, R. A., Muqodas, I., Wulandari, H., & Mifta, D. (2020). Alternative learning of the future based on Verbal-Linguistic, and visual-spatial intelligence through Youtube-based mind map when Pandemic Covid-19. Jurnal JPSD (Jurnal Pendidikan Sekolah Dasar), 7 (2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.12928/jpsd.v7i2.16925

Zampetakis, L. A., Tsironis, L., & Moustakis, V. (2007). Creativity development in engineering education: The case of mind mapping. Journal of Management Development, 26 (4), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710740110

Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Li, D., Hu, L., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2023). Engaging young students in effective robotics education: an embodied learning-based computer programming approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62 (2), 532–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231213548

Download references

This study is supported in part by the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan under contract numbers NSTC 112-2410-H-011-012-MY3 and MOST 111-2410-H-011 -007 -MY3. The study is also supported by the “Empower Vocational Education Research Center” of National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST) from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Management, Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan

Min-Chi Chiu

Department of Multimedia Design, National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Taichung, Taiwan

Graduate Institute of Educational Information and Measurement, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan

Gwo-Jen Hwang

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Min-Chi Chiu. Project administration were performed by Gwo-Jen Hwang and Min-Chi Chiu. Methodology and supervision were performed Gwo-Jen Hwang and Min-Chi Chiu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Min-Chi Chiu. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwo-Jen Hwang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The ethical requirements for research in this selected university were followed.

Consent to participate

The participants all agreed to take part in this study.

Consent for publication

The publication of this study has been approved by all authors.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

There is no potential conflict of interest in this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chiu, MC., Hwang, GJ. Enhancing students’ critical thinking and creative thinking: An integrated mind mapping and robot-based learning approach. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12752-6

Download citation

Received : 14 August 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12752-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mind mapping
• Intelligent robot
• 5E instructional model
• Artwork appreciation
• Creative thinking tendency
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Fostering creativity and critical thinking in college: a cross-cultural investigation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, Pace University, New York, NY, United States
• 2 Developmental and Educational Research Center for Children's Creativity, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Enhancing creativity and critical thinking have garnered the attention of educators and researchers for decades. They have been highlighted as essential skills for the 21st century. A total of 103 United States students (53 female, 24 male, two non-binary, and 24 non-reporting) and 166 Chinese students (128 female, 30 male, one non-binary, and seven non-reporting) completed an online survey. The survey includes the STEAM-related creative problem solving, Sternberg scientific reasoning tasks, psychological critical thinking (PCT) exam, California critical thinking (CCT) skills test, and college experience survey, as well as a demographic questionnaire. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yields a two-factor model for all creativity and critical thinking measurements. Yet, the two latent factors are strongly associated with each other ( r =0.84). Moreover, Chinese students outperform American students in measures of critical thinking, whereas Americans outperform Chinese students in measures of creativity. Lastly, the results also demonstrate that having some college research experience (such as taking research method courses) could positively influence both United States and Chinese students’ creativity and critical thinking skills. Implications are discussed.

Introduction

Creativity and critical thinking have been recognized as essential skills in the 21st century ( National Education Association, 2012 ). Many researchers and educators have focused on these two skills, including acquisition, enhancement, and performance. In addition, numerous studies have been devoted to understanding the conceptual complexities involved in creativity and critical thinking. Although similar to each other, creativity and critical thinking are distinctive by definition, each with a different emphasis.

The concept of creativity has evolved over the years. It was almost exclusively conceptualized as divergent thinking when Guilford (1956 , 1986) proposed divergent thinking as a part of intelligence. Earlier measures of creativity took the approach of divergent thinking, measuring creative potential ( Wallach and Kogan, 1965 ; Torrance, 1966 , 1988 ; Runco and Albert, 1986 ; Kim, 2005 ). In 1990s, many creativity scholars challenged the validity of tests of divergent thinking, and suggested that divergent thinking only captures the trivial sense of creativity, and proposed to use the product-oriented method to measure creativity ( Csikszentmihalyi, 1988 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ). A system model of creativity, which recognizes the important roles individual, field, and domain have played, was used as a framework to conceptualize creativity. A widely accepted definition for creativity is a person’s ability to generate an idea or product that is deemed as both novel and appropriate by experts in a field of human activities ( Scott and Bruce, 1994 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Hunter et al., 2007 ). Corazza and Lubart (2021) recently proposed a dynamic definition of creativity, in which creativity is defined as a context-embedded phenomenon that is tightly related to the cultural and social environment. Based on this new definition, measures of creativity should be context-specific and culturally relevant, especially when it is examined cross-culturally.

Similarly, the conceptualization of critical thinking has also evolved over the years. Earlier definitions emphasized the broad multidimensional aspects of critical thinking, including at least three aspects: attitude, knowledge, and skills ( Glaser, 1941 ). The definition has been evolved to include specific components for each aspect ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ). For example, critical thinking is recognized as the ability to use cognitive skills or strategies to increase the probability of a desirable outcome ( Halpern, 1999 ). More specifically, cognitive skills such as evaluation, problem-solving, reflective thinking, logical reasoning, and probability thinking are recognized as parts of critical thinking skills in research and assessments ( Ennis, 1987 , Scriven and Paul, 1987 , Halpern, 1999 ). Moving into the 21st century, metacognition and self-regulatory skills have also become essential components for critical thinking in addition to the cognitive skills recognized by earlier scholars ( Korn, 2014 , Paul and Elder, 2019 ).

Similar to the concept of creativity, critical thinking is also viewed as multidimensional and domain specific ( Bensley and Murtagh, 2012 ). For example, critical thinking in psychology, also referred to as psychological critical thinking (PCT), is defined as one’s ability to evaluate claims in a way that explicitly incorporates basic principles of psychological science ( Lawson, 1999 ). As one of the important hub sciences, psychology is often regarded as a foundational course for scientific training in American higher education ( Boyack et al., 2005 ). In psychological discourse, critical thinking is often defined in tandem with scientific thinking, which places significance on hypothesis-testing and problem-solving in order to reduce bias and erroneous beliefs ( Halpern, 1984 ; American Psychological Association, 2016 ; Lamont, 2020 ; Sternberg and Halpern, 2020 ). Based on this definition, measures of critical thinking should assess cognitive skills (i.e., evaluation, logical reasoning) and ability to utilize scientific methods for problem-solving.

In addition to the evolution of the definitions of critical thinking and creativity, research into these two concepts has led to the development of various measurements. For both concepts, there have been numerous measurements that have been studied, utilized, and improved.

The complexities associated with creativity (i.e., context-relevant and domain-specificity) pose a major issue for its measurement. Many different types of creativity measures have been developed in the past. Measures using a divergent thinking approach, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ( Torrance, 1974 ) and Alternate Uses Test ( Guilford et al., 1960 ), a product-oriented approach, a third person nomination approach, as well as a self-report approach measuring personality ( Gough, 1979 ), creative behavior ( Hocevar and Michael, 1979 ; Rodriguez-Boerwinkle et al., 2021 ), and creative achievement ( Carson et al., 2005 ; Diedrich et al., 2018 ).

Both the divergent thinking and the product-oriented approaches have been widely used in the creativity literature to objectively measure creativity. The tasks of both approaches are generally heuristic, meaning that no correct answer is expected and the process does not need to be rational. When scoring divergent thinking, the number of responses (i.e., fluency) and the rareness of the response (i.e., originality) were used to represent creativity. When scoring products using the product-orientated approach, a group of experts provides their subjective ratings on various dimensions such as originality, appropriateness, and aesthetically appealing to these products using their subjective criteria. When there is a consensus among the experts, average ratings of these expert scores are used to represent the creativity of the products. This approach is also named as Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1982 , 1996 ). Some scholars viewed the CAT approach as focusing on the convergent aspect of creativity ( Lubart et al., 2013 ). Recognizing the importance of divergent and convergent thinking in conceptualizing creativity, Lubart et al. (2013) have suggested including divergent thinking and product-oriented approach (i.e., CAT) to objective measures of creativity ( Barbot et al., 2011 ).

Similar to measures of creativity, measurements of critical thinking are also multilevel and multi-approach. In an article reviewing the construction of critical thinking in psychological studies, Lamont (2020) argues that critical thinking became a scientific object when psychologists attempted to measure it. Different from measures of creativity, where the tasks are heuristic in nature, measures of critical thinking require participants to engage in logical thinking. Therefore, the nature of critical thinking tasks is more algorithmic.

The interest in the study of critical thinking is evident in the increased efforts in the past decades to measure such a complex, multidimensional skill. Watson-Glaser Tests for Critical Thinking ( Watson and Glaser, 1938 ) is widely recognized as the first official measure of critical thinking. Since then, numerous measurements of critical thinking have been developed to evaluate both overall and domain-specific critical thinking, such as the PCT Exam ( Lawson, 1999 ; See Mueller et al., 2020 for list of assessments). A few of the most commonly used contemporary measures of critical thinking include the Watson-Glaser Test for Critical Thinking Appraisals ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ), Cornell Critical Thinking Test ( Ennis et al., 1985 ), and California Critical Thinking (CCT) Skills Test ( Facione and Facione, 1994 ). As the best established and widely used standardized critical thinking measures, these tests have been validated in various studies and have been used as a criterion for meta-analyses ( Niu et al., 2013 ; Ross et al., 2013 ).

There have also been concerns regarding the usage of these standardized measures of critical thinking on its own due to its emphasis on measuring general cognitive abilities of participants, while negating the domain-specific aspect of critical thinking ( Lamont, 2020 ). The issues associated with standardized measures are not unique to standardized critical thinking measures, as same types of criticisms have been raised for standardized college admissions measures such as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). To develop an assessment that encompasses a broader range of student abilities that is more aligned to scientific disciplines, Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) developed a scientific inquiry and reasoning measure. This measure is aimed to assess participants’ ability to utilize scientific methods and to think scientifically in order to investigate a topic or solve a problem ( Sternberg and Sternberg, 2017 ). The strength of this measure is that it assesses students’ abilities (i.e., ability to think critically) that are domain-specific and relevant to the sciences. Considering the multidimensional aspect of critical thinking, a combination of a standardized critical thinking measure, an assessment measuring cognitive abilities involved in critical thinking; and a measure that assesses domain-specific critical thinking, would provide a comprehensive evaluation of critical thinking.

The Relationship Between Creativity and Critical Thinking

Most of the studies thus far referenced have investigated creativity and critical thinking separately; however, the discussion on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking spans decades of research ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 ; Glassner and Schwartz, 2007 ; Wechsler et al., 2018 ; Akpur, 2020 ). Some earlier studies on the relationship between divergent thinking and critical thinking have observed a moderate correlation ( r =0.23, p <0.05) between the two ( Gibson et al., 1968 ). Using measures of creative personality, Gadzella and Penland (1995) also found a moderate correlation ( r =0.36, p <0.05) between creative personality and critical thinking.

Recent studies have further supported the positive correlation between critical thinking and creativity. For example, using the creative thinking disposition scale to measure creativity, Akpur (2020) found a moderate correlation between the two among college students ( r =0.27, p <0.05). Similarly, using the critical thinking disposition scale to measure critical thinking and scientific creativity scale and creative self-efficacy scale to measure creativity, Qiang et al. (2020) studied the relationship between critical thinking and creativity to a large sample of high school students ( n =1,153). They found that the relationship between the two varied depending on the type of measurement of creativity. More specifically, the correlation between critical thinking disposition and creative self-efficacy was r =0.045 ( p <0.001), whereas the correlation between critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity was r =0.15 ( p <0.01).

Recognizing the moderate relationship between the two, researchers have also aimed to study the independence of creativity and critical thinking. Some studies have found evidence that these constructs are relatively autonomous. The results of Wechsler et al. (2018) study, which aimed to investigate whether creativity and critical thinking are independent or complementary processes, found a relative autonomy of creativity and critical thinking and found that the variables were only moderately correlated. The researchers in this study suggest that a model that differentiated the two latent variables associated with creativity and critical thinking dimensions was the most appropriate method of analysis ( Wechsler et al., 2018 ). Evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are fairly independent processes was also found in study of Ling and Loh (2020) . The results of their research, which examined the relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition, revealed that creativity is a weak predictor of pattern recognition. In contrast, critical thinking is a good predictor ( Ling and Loh, 2020 ).

It is worth noting that a possible explanation for the inconsistencies in these studies’ results is the variance in the definition and the measures used to evaluate creativity and critical thinking. Based on the current literature on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, we believe that more investigation was needed to further clarify the relationship between creativity and critical thinking which became a catalyst for the current study.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Creativity and Critical Thinking Performance

Results from various cross-cultural studies suggest that there are differences in creativity and critical thinking skills among cultures. A common belief is that individuals from Western cultures are believed to be more critical and creative compared to non-Westerners, whereas individuals from non-Western cultures are believed to be better at critical thinking related tasks compared to Westerners ( Ng, 2001 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Lee et al., 2015 ). For example, Wong and Niu (2013) found a persistent cultural stereotype regarding creativity and critical thinking skills that exist cross-culturally. In their study, both Chinese and Americans believed that Chinese perform better in deductive reasoning (a skill comparable to critical thinking) and that Americans perform better on creativity. This stereotype belief was found to be incredibly persistent as participants did not change their opinions even when presented with data that contradicted their beliefs.

Interestingly, research does suggest that such a stereotype might be based on scientific evidence ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ). In the same study, it was revealed that Chinese did in fact perform better than Americans in deductive reasoning, and Americans performed better in creativity tests ( Wong and Niu, 2013 ). Similarly, Lee et al. (2015) found that compared to American students, Korean students believed that they are more prone to use receptive learning abilities (remembering and reproducing what is taught) instead of critical and creative learning abilities.

Cultural Influence on Critical Thinking

Other studies investigating the cultural influence on critical thinking have had more nuanced findings. Manalo et al. (2013) study of university students from New Zealand and Japan found that culture-related factors (self-construal, regulatory mode, and self-efficacy) do influence students’ critical thinking use. Still, the differences in those factors do not necessarily equate to differences in critical thinking. Their results found that students from Western and Asian cultural environments did not have significant differences in their reported use of critical thinking. The researchers in this study suggest that perhaps the skills and values nurtured in the educational environment have a more significant influence on students’ use of critical thinking ( Manalo et al., 2013 ).

Another study found that New Zealand European students performed better on objective measures of critical thinking than Chinese students. Still, such differences could be explained by the student’s English proficiency and not dialectical thinking style. It was also revealed in this study that Chinese students tended to rely more on dialectical thinking to solve critical thinking problems compared to the New Zealand European students ( Lun et al., 2010 ). Other research on the cultural differences in thinking styles revealed that Westerners are more likely to use formal logical rules in reasoning. In contrast, Asians are more likely to use intuitive experience-based sense when solving critical thinking problems ( Nisbett et al., 2001 ).

These studies suggest that culture can be used as a broad taxonomy to explain differences in critical thinking use. Still, one must consider the educational environment and thinking styles when studying the nature of the observed discrepancies. For instance, cultural differences in thinking style, in particular, might explain why Westerners perform better on some critical thinking measures, whereas Easterners perform better on others.

Cultural Influence on Creative Performance

Historically, creativity studies have suggested that individuals from non-Western cultures are not as creative as Westerners ( Torrance, 1974 ; Jellen and Urban, 1989 ; Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). For example, in one study, Americans generated more aesthetically pleasing artworks (as judged by both American and Chinese judges) than Chinese ( Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ). However, recent creativity research has suggested that cross-cultural differences are primarily attributable to the definition of creativity rather than the level of creativity between cultures. As aforementioned, creativity is defined as an idea or product that is both novel and appropriate. Many cross-cultural studies have found that Westerners have a preference and perform better in the novelty aspect, and Easterners have a preference and perform better in the appropriateness aspect. In cross-cultural studies, Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) found that Israelis tend to generate more original ideas than their Singaporean counterparts. In contrast, Singaporeans tend to produce more appropriate ideas. Bechtoldt et al. (2012) found in their study that Koreans generated more useful ideas, whereas Dutch students developed more original ideas. Liou and Lan (2018) found Taiwanese tend to create and select more useful ideas, whereas Americans tend to generate and choose more novel ideas. The differences in creativity preference and performance found in these studies suggest that cultural influence is a prominent factor in creativity.

In summary, cross-cultural studies have supported the notion that culture influences both creativity and critical thinking. This cultural influence seems relatively unambiguous in creativity as it has been found in multiple studies that cultural background can explain differences in performance and preference to the dual features of creativity. Critical thinking has also been influenced by culture, albeit in an opaquer nature in comparison to creativity. Critical thinking is ubiquitous in all cultures, but the conception of critical thinking and the methods used to think critically (i.e., thinking styles) are influenced by cultural factors.

Influence of College Experience on Creativity and Critical Thinking

Given its significance as a core academic ability, the hypothesis of many colleges and universities emphasize that students will gain critical thinking skills as the result of their education. Fortunately, studies have shown that these efforts have had some promising outcomes. Around 92% of students in multi-institution research reported gains in critical thinking. Only 8.9% of students believed that their critical thinking had not changed or had grown weaker ( Tsui, 1998 ). A more recent meta-analysis by Huber and Kuncel (2016) found that students make substantial gains in critical thinking during college. In addition, the efforts to enhance necessary thinking skills have led to the development of various skill-specific courses. Mill et al. (1994) found that among three groups of undergraduate students, a group that received tutorial sessions and took research methodology and statistics performed significantly better on scientific reasoning and critical thinking abilities tests than control groups. Penningroth et al. (2007) found that students who took a class in which they were required to engage in active learning and critical evaluation of claims by applying scientific concepts, had greater improvement in psychological critical thinking than students in the comparison groups. There have also been studies in which students’ scientific inquiry and critical thinking skills have improved by taking a course designed with specific science thinking and reasoning modules ( Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ).

Using a Survey of Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE), Lopatto (2004 , 2008) found that research experience can help students gain various learning skills such as ability to integrate theory and practice, ability to analyze data, skill in the interpretation of results, and understanding how scientists work on problem. All of these learning skills correspond to at least one of the dimensions mentioned earlier in the definition of critical thinking (i.e., evaluation, analytical thinking, and problem solving through). Thus, results of SURE provide evidence that critical thinking can be enhanced through research experience ( Lopatto, 2004 , 2008 ).

In comparison to critical thinking, only a few studies have examined the interaction between creativity and college experience. Previous research on STEM provides some evidence to suggest that STEM education can promote the learner’s creativity ( Land, 2013 , Guo and Woulfin, 2016 , Kuo et al., 2018 ). Notably, study of Kuo et al. (2018) suggest that project-based learning in STEM has the merits of improving one’s creativity. They found that the STEM Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning (IPBL) course is a practical approach to improve college student’s creativity ( Kuo et al., 2018 ). College research experience in particular, has been reported as important or very important by faculty and students for learning how to approach problems creatively ( Zydney et al., 2002 ).

Although specific college courses aimed to enhance creativity have been scarce, some training programs have been developed specifically to improve creativity. Scott et al. (2004) conducted a quantitative review of various creativity training and found that divergent thinking, creative problem solving, and creativity performance can be enhanced through skill-specific training programs. Embodied creativity training programs, consisting of creativity fitness exercises and intensive workshops, have also been effective in enhancing participants’ creative production and improving their creative self-efficacy ( Byrge and Tang, 2015 ).

Both critical thinking and creativity were also found to be important in students’ learning. Using a longitudinal design for one semester to 52 graduate students in biology, Siburian et al. (2019) studied how critical thinking and creative thinking contribute to improving cognitive learning skills. They found that both critical and creative thinking significantly contributes to enhancing cognitive learning skills ( R 2 =0.728). They each contribute separately to the development of cognitive learning skills ( b was 0.123 between critical thinking and cognitive learning and 0.765 between creative thinking and cognitive learning). The results from research on creativity and critical thinking indicate that training and experiences of students in college can enhance both of these skills.

Current Study

Previous literature on creativity and critical thinking suggests that there is a positive correlation between these two skills. Moreover, cultural background influences creativity and critical thinking conception and performance. However, our literature review suggests that there are only a few studies that have investigated creativity and critical thinking simultaneously to examine whether cultural background is a significant influence in performance. In addition, most of the past research on creativity and critical thinking have relied on dispositions or self-reports to measure the two skills and the investigation on the actual performance have been scarce. Lastly, past studies suggest that the acquisition and enhancement of these skills are influenced by various factors. Notably, college experience and skill-specific training have been found to improve both creativity and critical thinking. However, it is not yet clear how college experience aids in fostering creativity and critical thinking and which elements of college education are beneficial for enhancing these two skills. The cultural influence on creativity and critical thinking performance also needs further investigation.

The current study aimed to answer two questions related to this line of thought. How does culture influence creativity and critical thinking performance? How does college experience affect creativity and critical thinking? Based on past findings, we developed three hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that there is a positive association between critical thinking and creativity. Second, we suggest that college students from different countries have different levels of creativity and critical thinking. More specifically, we predicted that United States students would perform better than Chinese students on both creativity and critical thinking. Last, we hypothesized that having college research experience (through courses or research labs) will enhance creativity and critical thinking.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The study was examined by the Internal Review Board by the host university in the United States and obtained an agreement from a partner university in China to meet the ethical standard of both countries.

Participants include 103 university students from the United States and 166 university students from Mainland China. Among all participants, 181 were female (67.3%), 54 were male (20.1%), non-binary or gender fluid ( n =3, 1.1%), and some did not report their gender ( n =31, 11.5%). The majority of participants majored in social sciences ( n =197, 73.2%). Other disciplines include business and management ( n =38, 14.1%), engineering and IT ( n =20, 7.4%), and sciences ( n =14, 5.2%). A Chi-square analysis was performed to see if the background in major was different between the American and Chinese samples. The results showed that the two samples are comparable in college majors, X 2 (3, 265) =5.50, p =0.138.

The American participants were recruited through campus recruitment flyers and a commercial website called Prolific (online survey distribution website). Ethnicities of the American participants were White ( n =44, 42.7%), Asian ( n =13, 12.6%), Black or African American ( n =11, 10.7%), Hispanic or Latinos ( n =5, 4.9%), and some did not report their ethnicity ( n =30, 29.1%). The Chinese participants were recruited through online recruitment flyers. All Chinese students were of Han ethnicity.

After reviewing and signing an online consent form, both samples completed a Qualtrics survey containing creativity and critical thinking measures.

Measurements

Steam related creative problem solving.

This is a self-designed measurement, examining participant’s divergent and convergent creative thinking in solving STEAM-related real-life problems. It includes three vignettes, each depicting an issue that needs to be resolved. Participants were given a choice to pick two vignettes to which they would like to provide possible solutions for. Participants were asked to provide their answers in two parts. In the first part, participants were asked to provide as many solutions as they can think of for the problem depicted (divergent). In the second part, participants were asked to choose one of the solutions they gave in the first part that they believe is the most creative and elaborate on how they would carry out the solution (convergent).

The responses for the first part of the problem (i.e., divergent) were scored based on fluency (number of solutions given). Each participant received a score on fluency by averaging the number of solutions given across three tasks. In order to score the originality of the second part of the solution (i.e., convergent), we invited four graduate students who studied creativity for at least 1year as expert judges to independently rate the originality of all solutions. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for all three vignette solutions (0.809, 0.906, and 0.703). We then averaged the originality scores provided by the four experts to represent the originality of each solution. We then averaged the top three solutions as rated by the experts to represent the student’s performance on originality. In the end, each student received two scores on this task: fluency and originality.

Psychological Critical Thinking Exam

We adopted an updated PCT Exam developed by Lawson et al. (2015) , which made improvements to the original measure ( Lawson, 1999 ). We used PCT to measure the participants’ domain-specific critical thinking: critical thinking involved in the sciences. The initial assessment aimed to examine the critical thinking of psychology majors; however, the updated measure was developed so that it can be used to examine students’ critical thinking in a variety of majors. The split-half reliability of the revised measurement was 0.88, and test-retest reliability was 0.90 ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). Participants were asked to identify issues with a problematic claim made in two short vignettes. For example, one of the questions states:

Over the past few years, Jody has had several dreams that apparently predicted actual events. For example, in one dream, she saw a car accident and later that week she saw a van run into the side of a pickup truck. In another dream, she saw dark black clouds and lightning and 2days later a loud thunderstorm hit her neighborhood. She believes these events are evidence that she has a psychic ability to predict the future through her dreams. Could the event have occurred by chance? State whether or not there is a problem with the person’s conclusions and explain the problem (if there is one).

Responses were scored based on the rubric provided in the original measurement ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). If no problem was identified the participants would receive zero points. If a problem was recognized but misidentified, the participants would receive one point. If the main problem was identified and other less relevant problems were identified, the participants received two points. If participants identified only the main problem, they received three points. Following the rubric, four graduate students independently rated the students’ critical thinking task. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for both vignettes (0.773 and 0.712). The average of the four scores given by the experts was used as the final score for the participants.

California Critical Thinking Skills Test

This objective measure of critical thinking was developed by Facione and Facione (1994) . We used CCT to measure a few of the multidimensions of critical thinking such as evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking. Five sample items provided from Insight Assessment were used instead of the standard 40-min long CCT. Participants were presented with everyday scenarios with 4–6 answer choices. Participants were asked to make an accurate and complete interpretation of the question in order to correctly answer the question by choosing the right answer choice (each correct answer was worth one point). This test is commonly used to measure critical thinking, and previous research has reported its reliability as r =0.86 ( Hariri and Bagherinejad, 2012 ).

Sternberg Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning

This measure was developed by Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) as an assessment of scientific reasoning. We used this assessment as a domain-specific assessment to measure participants’ scientific creativity (generating testable hypotheses) and scientific critical thinking involved in generating experiments. For this two-part measure, participants were asked to read two short vignettes. For one of the vignettes, participants were asked to generate as many hypotheses as possible to explain the events described in the vignette. For the other, create an experiment to test the hypothesis mentioned in the vignette.

After carefully reviewing the measurement, we notice that the nature of the tasks in the first part of this measure (hypothesis generation) relied on heuristics, requiring participants to engage in divergent thinking. The number of valid hypotheses provided (i.e., fluency) was used to represent the performance of this task. We, therefore, deem that this part measures creativity. In contrast, the second part of the measure, experiment generation, asked participants to use valid scientific methods to design an experiment following the procedure of critical thinking such as evaluation, problem-solving, and task evaluation. Its scoring also followed algorithms so that a correct answer could be achieved. For the above reasons, we believe hypotheses generation is a measurement of creativity and experiment generation is a measurement for critical thinking.

Based on the recommended scoring manual, one graduate student calculated the fluency score from the hypothesis generation measurement. Four experts read through all students’ responses to the experiment generation. They discussed a rubric on how to score these responses, using a four-point scale, with a “0” representing no response or wrong response, a “1” representing partially correct, a “2” representing correct response. An additional point (the three points) was added if the participant provided multiple design methods. Based on the above rubric, the four experts independently scored this part of the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the four expert ratings was 0.792. The average score of the four judges was used to represent their critical thinking scores on this task.

College Experience Survey

Participants were asked about their past research experience, either specifically in psychology or in general academia. Participants were asked to choose between three choices: no research experience, intermediate research experience (i.e., research work for class, research work for lab), and advanced research experience (i.e., professional research experience, published works).

Demographic and Background Questionnaire

Series of standard demographic questions were asked, including participants’ age, gender, and ethnicity.

We performed a Pearson correlation to examine the relationship between creativity and critical thinking (the two-c), which include performances on three measures on creativity ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ) and three measures on critical thinking ( experiment generation , CCT , and PCT ).

Most of the dependent variables had a significantly positive correlation. The only insignificant correlation was found between Sternberg hypothesis generation and CCT, r (247) =0.024, p =0.708 (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Correlation coefficients for study variables.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted by applying SEM through AMOS 21 software program and the maximum likelihood method. One-factor and two-factor models have been analyzed, respectively (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . The comparison of the two confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models: one-factor vs. two-factor.

As it is demonstrated in Table 2 , the value ranges of the most addressed fit indices used in the analysis of SEM are presented. Comparing two models, χ 2 /df of the two-factor model is in a good fit, while the index of the one-factor model is in acceptable fit. The comparison of the two models suggest that the two-factor model is a better model than the one-factor model.

Table 2 . Recommended values for evaluation and the obtained values.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking and Creativity

We conducted a 2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking) ANOVA to investigate the cultural differences in critical thinking and creativity. We averaged scores of three critical thinking measurement ( experiment generation , PCT , and CCT ) to represent critical thinking and averaged three creativity scores ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ).

This analysis revealed a significant main effect for the type of thinking (i.e., creative vs. critical thinking), F (1,247) =464.77, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.653. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and type of thinking, F (1,247) =62.00, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.201. More specifically, Chinese students ( M =1.32, SD =0.59) outperformed American students ( M =1.02, SD =0.44) on critical thinking. In contrast, American students ( M =2.59, SD =1.07) outperformed Chinese students ( M =2.05, SD =0.83) on creativity.

Influence of Research Experience on Critical Thinking and Creativity

The last hypothesis states that having college research experience (through courses or research lab) would enhance students’ creativity and critical thinking from both countries. We performed a 2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking)×2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×3 (Research Experience: Advanced vs. Some vs. No) ANOVA to test this hypothesis. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for research experience, F (2,239) =4.05, p =0.019, η p 2 =0.033. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and research experience, F (2,239) =5.77, p =0.004, η p 2 =0.046. In addition, there was a three-way interaction among country, two-C, and research experience. More specifically, with an increase of research experience for American students, both critical thinking and creativity improved. In contrast, for Chinese students, the impact of research experience was not significant for creativity. However, some research experience positively impacted Chinese students’ critical thinking (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2 . Estimated marginal means of Two-C for the United States and Chinese samples.

The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, how culture influences creativity and critical thinking, and how college research experience affects creativity and critical thinking. Our results supported the first hypothesis regarding the positive correlation among all of the dependent variables. The mean correlation between the measures of creativity and critical thinking was 0.230. This result was in line with the findings from previous research ( Gibson et al., 1968 ; Gadzella and Penland, 1995 ; Siburian et al., 2019 ; Akpur, 2020 ; Qiang et al., 2020 ). Moreover, our confirmatory factor analysis yielded similar results as analysis of Wechsler et al. (2018) and Akpur (2020) and provides more evidence of the relative independence between creativity and critical thinking. We found that at the latent variable level, the two skills are highly correlated to each other ( r =0.84). In addition, we found that although the one-factor model was an acceptable fit, a two-factor model was a better fit for analysis. This result suggests that despite the correlation between creativity and critical thinking, the two skills should be studied as separate factors for an appropriate and comprehensive analysis.

The results of this study partially confirmed our second hypothesis and replicated the findings from past studies ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Lun et al., 2010 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). As predicted, there was a significant main effect for culture in students’ performance for all six measures in the two-C analysis model. United States students performed better than Chinese students in all three creativity measures, and Chinese students performed better than United States students in all critical thinking measures. Given the diversity in the type of measures used in this study, the results suggest that United States and Chinese students’ performance aligns with the stereotype belief found in study of Wong and Niu (2013) . The findings from the current study suggest that the stereotype belief observed in both United States and Chinese students (United States students generally perform better on creativity tasks, while Chinese students perform typically better on critical thinking tasks) is not entirely unfounded. Furthermore, the clear discrepancy in performance between United States and Chinese students provides more evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are relatively autonomous skills. Although, a high correlation between these two skills was found in our study, the fact that students from two different cultures have two different development trajectories in critical thinking and creativity suggests that these two skills are relatively autonomous.

Lastly, the results also confirmed our third hypothesis, that is, college research experience did have a positive influence on students’ creativity and critical thinking. Compared to students with no research experience, students with some research experience performed significantly better in all measures of creativity and critical thinking. This finding is consistent with the previous literature ( Mill et al., 1994 ; Penningroth et al., 2007 ; Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ; Kuo et al., 2018 ). The result of our study suggests that college research experience is significant to enhance both creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes a more essential component of college education, our results suggest that it not only can add credential for applying to graduate school or help students learn skills specific to research, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking. Furthermore, it is worth noting that this nature held true for both Chinese and American students. To our knowledge, this is a first investigation examining the role of research experience in both creativity and critical thinking cross-culturally.

In addition to the report of our findings, we would like to address some limitations of our study. First, we would like to note that this is a correlational and cross-sectional study. A positive correlation between research experience and the two dependent variables does not necessarily mean causation. Our results indeed indicate a positive correlation between research experience and the two-C variables; however, we are not sure of the nature of this relationship. It is plausible that students with higher creativity and critical thinking skills are more engaged in research as much as it is to argue in favor of a reversed directional relationship. Second, we would like to note the sample bias in our study. Majority of our participants were female, majoring in the social sciences and a relatively high number of participants chose not to report their gender. Third, we would like to note that our study did not measure all creativity and critical thinking dimensions, we discussed in the introduction. Instead, we focused on a few key dimensions of creativity and critical thinking. Our primary focus was on divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and scientific creativity as well as few key dimensions of critical thinking (evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking), scientific critical thinking involved in problem solving and hypothesis testing. Moreover, our results do not show what specific components of research training are beneficial for the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking.

For future research, a longitudinal design involving a field experiment will help investigate how different research training components affect the development of creativity and critical thinking. In addition, a cross-cultural study can further examine how and why the students from different cultures differ from each other in the development of these two potentials. As such, it might shed some light on the role of culture in creativity and critical thinking.

Conclusion and Implication

The result of our study provides few insights to the study of creativity and critical thinking. First, creativity and critical thinking are a different construct yet highly correlated. Second, whereas Americans perform better on creativity measures, Chinese perform better on critical thinking measures. Third, for both American and Chinese students, college research experience is a significant influence on the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes more and more essential to college education, its role can not only add professional and postgraduate credentials, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking.

Based on our results, we recommend that research training be prioritized in higher education. Moreover, each culture has strengths to develop one skill over the other, hence, each culture could invest more in developing skills that were found to be weaker in our study. Eastern cultures can encourage more creativity and Western cultures can encourage more critical thinking.

To conclude, we would like to highlight that, although recognized globally as essential skills, methods to foster creativity and critical thinking skills and understanding creativity and critical thinking as a construct requires further research. Interestingly, our study found that experience of research itself can help enhance creativity and critical thinking. Our study also aimed to expand the knowledge of creativity and critical thinking literature through an investigation of the relationship of the two variables and how cultural background influences the performance of these two skills. We hope that our findings can provide insights for researchers and educators to find constructive methods to foster students’ essential 21st century skills, creativity and critical thinking, to ultimately enhance their global competence and life success.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board at Pace University. The participants provided their informed consent online prior to participating in the study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

This work was supported by the International Joint Research Project of Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (ICER201904), and a scholarly research funding by Pace University.

Akpur, U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Think. Skills Creat. 37:100683. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43, 997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity. ” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (2016). Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: version 2.0. Am. Psychol. 71, 102–111. doi: 10.1037/a0037562

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., and Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. Open Educ. J. 4, 58–66. doi: 10.2174/1874920801104010058

Barron, F., and Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32, 439–476. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255

Bechtoldt, M., Choi, H., and Nijstad, A. B. (2012). Individuals in mind, mates by heart: individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 838–844. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.014

Bensley, D. A., and Murtagh, M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment. Teach. Psychol. 39, 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0098628311430642

Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., and Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64, 351–374. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6

Byrge, C., and Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production. Think. Skills Creat. 16, 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., and Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creat. Res. J. 17, 37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Corazza, G. E., and Lubart, T. (2021). Intelligence and creativity: mapping constructs on the space-time continuum. J. Intell. 9:1. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9010001

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). “Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity” in The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 325–339.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). “Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 313–335.

Diedrich, J., Jauk, E., Silvia, P. J., Gredlein, J. M., Neubauer, A. C., and Benedek, M. (2018). Assessment of real-life creativity: the inventory of creative activities and achievements (ICAA). Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12, 304–316. doi: 10.1037/aca0000137

Ennis, R. H. (1987). “A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities” in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. eds. Baron, J. B., and Sternberg, R. J. (New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.), 9–26.

Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., and Tomko, T. N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level x and Level z Manual. 3rd Edn . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

Facione, P. A., and Facione, N. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Test Manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Gadzella, B. M., and Penland, E. (1995). Is creativity related to scores on critical thinking? Psychol. Rep. 77, 817–818. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.817

Gibson, J. W., Kibler, R. J., and Barker, L. L. (1968). Some relationships between selected creativity and critical thinking measures. Psychol. Rep. 23, 707–714. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3.707

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Glassner, A., and Schwartz, B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Think. Skills Creat. 2, 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1398–1405. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychol. Bull. 53, 267–293. doi: 10.1037/h0040755

Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative Talents: Their Nature, Uses and Development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.

Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., and Wilson, R. C. (1960). Alternate Uses Manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Guo, J., and Woulfin, S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: an investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity. Roeper Rev. 38, 153–161. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741

Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1999, 69–74. doi: 10.1002/tl.8005

Hariri, N., and Bagherinejad, Z. (2012). Evaluation of critical thinking skills in students of health faculty, Mazandaran university of medical sciences. J. Mazand. Univ. Med. Sci. 21, 166–173.

Hocevar, D., and Michael, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 39, 917–921. doi: 10.1177/001316447903900427

Huber, C. R., and Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 431–468. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917

Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., and Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: a quantitative review. Creat. Res. J. 19, 69–90. doi: 10.1080/10400410709336883

Jellen, H. U., and Urban, K. (1989). Assessing creative potential worldwide: the first cross-cultural application of the test for creative thinking–drawing production (TCT–DP). Gifted Educ. 6, 78–86. doi: 10.1177/026142948900600204

Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. J. Sec. Gifted Educ. 16, 57–66. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2005-473

Korn, M. (2014). Bosses Seek ‘Critical Thinking,’ but What Is That? Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://online.wsj.com/articles/bosses-seek-critical-thinking-but-what-is-that-1413923730 (Accessed October 18, 2021).

Kuo, H.-C., Tseng, Y.-C., and Yang, Y.-T. C. (2018). Promoting college student's learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Think. Skills Creat. 31, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001

Lamont, P. (2020). The construction of "critical thinking": between how we think and what we believe. Hist. Psychol. 23, 232–251. doi: 10.1037/hop0000145

Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: the benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Compl. Adapt. Syst. 20, 547–552. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317

Lawson, T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for psychology majors. Teach. Psychol. 26, 207–209. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP260311

Lawson, T. J., Jordan-Fleming, M. K., and Bodle, J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking. Teach. Psychol. 42, 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624

Lee, H.-J., Lee, J., Makara, K. A., Fishman, B. J., and Hong, Y. I. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 34, 131–146. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.892477

Ling, M. K. D., and Loh, S. C. (2020). Relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition among Singapore private school students. J. Educ. Res. 113, 59–76. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1716203

Liou, S., and Lan, X. (2018). Situational salience of norms moderates cultural differences in the originality and usefulness of creative ideas generated or selected by teams. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49, 290–302. doi: 10.1177/0022022116640897

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045

Lopatto, D. (2008). “Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences: The SURE survey” in Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science eds. R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton (New York: Teachers College Press), 112–132.

Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., and Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. Int. J. Talent Dev. Creat. 1, 41–50.

Lun, V. M.-C., Fischer, R., and Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 604–616. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001

Manalo, E., Kusumi, T., Koyasu, M., Michita, Y., and Tanaka, Y. (2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students' critical thinking use? Think. Skills Creat. 10, 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003

Mill, D., Gray, T., and Mandel, D. R. (1994). Influence of research methods and statistics courses on everyday reasoning, critical abilities, and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 26, 246–258. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.26.2.246

Mueller, J. F., Taylor, H. K., Brakke, K., Drysdale, M., Kelly, K., Levine, G. M., et al. (2020). Assessment of scientific inquiry and critical thinking: measuring APA goal 2 student learning outcomes. Teach. Psychol. 47, 274–284. doi: 10.1177/0098628320945114

National Education Association (2012). Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An educator's Guide to the "Four Cs". Alexandria, VA: National Education Association.

Ng, A.K. (2001). Why Asians Are less Creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., and Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol. Rev. 108, 291–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., and Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students' critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 9, 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Niu, W., and Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. Int. J. Psychol. 36, 225–241. doi: 10.1080/00207590143000036

Niu, W., Zhang, J. X., and Yang, Y. (2007). Deductive reasoning and creativity: a cross-cultural study. Psychol. Rep. 100, 509–519. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.2.509-519

Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2019). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. 8th Edn . Lanham, MD: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Penningroth, S. L., Despain, L. H., and Gray, M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teach. Psychol. 34, 153–157. doi: 10.1080/00986280701498509

Qiang, R., Han, Q., Guo, Y., Bai, J., and Karwowski, M. (2020). Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: the mediating role of creative self-efficacy. J. Creat. Behav. 54, 90–99. doi: 10.1002/jocb.347

Rockstuhl, T., and Ng, K.-Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams. In Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. (eds.) Ang, S., and Dyne, L.Van. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 206–220.

Rodriguez-Boerwinkle, R., Silvia, P., Kaufman, J. C., Reiter-Palmon, R., and Puryear, J. S. (2021). Taking inventory of the creative behavior inventory: an item response theory analysis of the CBI. [Preprint]. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/b7cfd

Ross, D., Loeffler, K., Schipper, S., Vandermeer, B., and Allan, G. M. (2013). Do scores on three commonly used measures of critical thinking correlate with academic success of health professions trainees? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad. Med. 88, 724–734. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828b0823

Runco, M. A., and Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: an empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creat. Child Adult Q. 11, 212–218.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research 8, 23–74.

Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 580–607.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., and Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creat. Res. J. 16, 361–388. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549

Scriven, M., and Paul, R. (1987). Defining Critical Thinking. In 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform ; August 2–5, 1987.

Siburian, J., Corebima, A. D., Ibrohim,, and Saptasari, M. (2019). The correlation between critical and creative thinking skills on cognitive learning results. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 19, 99–114. doi: 10.14689/EJER.2019.81.6

Sternberg, R. J., and Halpern, D. F. (eds.) (2020). Critical Thinking in Psychology. 2nd Edn . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1999). “The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 3–15.

Sternberg, R. J., and Sternberg, K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. J. Intell. 5, 29. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5030029

Stevens, C., and Witkow, M. R. (2014). Training scientific thinking skills: evidence from an MCAT 2015 aligned classroom module. Teach. Psychol. 41, 115–121. doi: 10.1177/0098628314530341

Stevens, C., Witkow, M. R., and Smelt, B. (2016). Strengthening scientific reasoning skills in introductory psychology: evidence from community college and liberal arts classrooms. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2, 245–260. doi: 10.1037/stl0000070

Tang, M., Werner, C., Cao, G., Tumasjan, A., Shen, J., Shi, J., et al. (2015). Creative expression and its evaluation on work-related verbal tasks: a comparison of Chinese and German samples. J. Creat. Behav. 52, 91–103. doi: 10.1002/jocb.134

Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking: Norms–Technical Manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). “The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing” in The Nature of Creativity. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 43–73.

Tsui, L. (1998). Fostering Critical Thinking in College Students: A Mixed-Methods Study of Influences Inside and Outside of the Classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9917229)

Wallach, M. A., and Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Watson, G. B., and Glaser, E. M. (1938). The Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Institute for Propaganda Analysis.

Watson, G. B., and Glaser, E. M. (1980). WGCTA Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual: Forms A and B. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundim, M. C., et al. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: independent or overlapping components? Think. Skills Creat. 27, 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003

Wong, R., and Niu, W. (2013). Cultural difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 47, 41–59. doi: 10.1002/jocb.22

Zydney, A. L., Bennett, J. S., Shahid, A., and Bauer, K. W. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 91, 291–297. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00706.x

Keywords: creativity, critical thinking, cross-cultural differences, college, research experience

Citation: Park JH, Niu W, Cheng L and Allen H (2021) Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in College: A Cross-Cultural Investigation. Front. Psychol . 12:760351. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760351

Received: 18 August 2021; Accepted: 11 October 2021; Published: 11 November 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Park, Niu, Cheng and Allen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Li Cheng, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CREATIVE AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS (ANALYTICAL STUDY IN FINE ARTS PHILOSOPHY)

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options.

For users with print-disabilities

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by Mahmoud Ahmed Darwish on November 12, 2016

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

• [email protected]
• Login / Register

Teach Critical, Creative, and Independent Thinking

Article 26 May 2024 110 0

Introduction

In an ever-evolving world, the ability to think critically, creatively, and independently is more crucial than ever. These skills empower individuals to navigate complex problems, innovate solutions, and make informed decisions. This article explores various methods and techniques to teach these essential thinking skills, providing educators, parents, and learners with practical strategies to foster a thinking mindset.

Definitions and Importance

Critical thinking.

Critical thinking involves analyzing information objectively, evaluating evidence, and reasoning logically. It’s essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and understanding complex issues. In today’s information-rich age, critical thinking helps discern credible sources from misinformation, making it a vital skill for both personal and professional success.

Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is the ability to generate new ideas, see connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, and think outside the box. This skill drives innovation and is crucial in fields ranging from the arts to science and business. Creative thinkers can adapt to new situations and find unique solutions to challenges.

Independent Thinking

Independent thinking refers to the ability to form one’s own opinions and make decisions without undue influence from others. It involves self-reflection, confidence, and the courage to stand by one’s beliefs. Independent thinkers are better equipped to lead, innovate, and contribute meaningfully to society.

Educational Approaches

Socratic questioning.

Socratic questioning is a method of teaching that encourages critical thinking through dialogue. By asking probing questions, educators can help students explore complex ideas and develop their reasoning skills. This approach fosters deep understanding and helps learners become more thoughtful and reflective.

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an educational strategy where students learn by solving real-world problems. This method promotes critical thinking, creativity, and independent learning as students must research, collaborate, and apply their knowledge to find solutions.

Brainstorming Sessions

Brainstorming sessions are a popular technique for fostering creative thinking. By encouraging free-flowing ideas in a judgment-free environment, educators can help students think expansively and explore multiple possibilities. This method is especially effective in group settings, where diverse perspectives can spark innovative solutions.

Practical Tips for Educators and Parents

Use open-ended questions.

Open-ended questions stimulate critical and creative thinking by requiring more than a yes-or-no answer. Questions like “What do you think will happen if...?” or “How might we solve this problem?” encourage students to think deeply and explore different angles.

Encourage Curiosity

Fostering a sense of curiosity is fundamental to developing thinking skills. Encourage students to ask questions, explore new topics, and seek out information. Create a learning environment that celebrates inquiry and values the process of discovery.

Promote Self-Reflection

Self-reflection helps students develop independent thinking by encouraging them to consider their own thoughts and feelings. Activities like journaling or discussing personal experiences can help learners understand their thought processes and build confidence in their ideas.

Cognitive Strategies

Mind mapping.

Mind mapping is a visual tool that helps organize thoughts and ideas. By creating a diagram that connects related concepts, students can see the relationships between different pieces of information and think more holistically. This technique is particularly useful for brainstorming and organizing complex subjects.

Analogical Reasoning

Analogical reasoning involves drawing comparisons between similar situations to understand new concepts. By relating unfamiliar ideas to known experiences, students can grasp complex ideas more easily and develop creative solutions.

Thinking Routines

Thinking routines are structured approaches that guide students through the thinking process. Routines like “See-Think-Wonder” or “Claim-Support-Question” provide a framework for exploring ideas deeply and systematically. These routines can be used across various subjects to promote critical and creative thinking.

Real-Life Applications

Problem-solving skills.

Critical and creative thinking skills are essential for effective problem-solving. Whether in personal life or professional settings, the ability to analyze situations, generate solutions, and make decisions is invaluable. Teaching these skills equips learners to handle challenges confidently and competently.

Decision-Making Abilities

Independent thinking enhances decision-making by fostering self-reliance and confidence. By teaching students to evaluate options, consider consequences, and trust their judgment, we prepare them to make informed choices that align with their values and goals.

Innovation and Creativity

Creative thinking drives innovation, which is crucial in today’s fast-paced, competitive world. By encouraging students to think creatively, we cultivate a mindset that embraces change, seeks out new opportunities, and continuously strives for improvement.

Resources and Tools

• “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman : This book explores the two systems of thought and how they shape our judgments and decisions.
• “The Art of Thinking Clearly” by Rolf Dobelli : A practical guide to avoiding cognitive errors and thinking more effectively.
• “Creative Confidence” by Tom Kelley and David Kelley : A book that encourages readers to unleash their creativity and apply it in their daily lives.

Online Courses

• Coursera’s “Learning How to Learn” : This course offers techniques to help learners master complex subjects and develop effective thinking strategies.
• edX’s “Critical Thinking & Problem-Solving” : A course designed to enhance critical thinking skills through practical exercises and real-world applications.
• Udemy’s “Creative Thinking Techniques and Tools for Success” : A course that provides tools and methods to boost creative thinking and innovation.
• MindMeister : An online mind mapping tool that helps visualize and organize ideas.
• Evernote : A note-taking app that supports organizing thoughts and tracking creative ideas.
• Coggle : A collaborative mind mapping tool that is ideal for group brainstorming sessions.

Teaching someone how to think critically, creatively, and independently is one of the most valuable gifts we can offer. These skills not only enhance academic and professional success but also enrich personal growth and lifelong learning. By employing the educational approaches, cognitive strategies, and practical tips discussed in this blog, educators and parents can cultivate a thinking mindset in learners, empowering them to navigate an increasingly complex world with confidence and creativity.

Whether through Socratic questioning, problem-based learning, or encouraging self-reflection, the journey to developing these essential skills is both challenging and rewarding. Let us commit to fostering environments that celebrate curiosity, promote deep thinking, and inspire the next generation of critical, creative, and independent thinkers.

• Latest Articles

10 Unwritten Social Rules You Should Know

Overview of nepal's education budget for the fiscal year 2081-2082, the curse of knowledge: risks of overstudying, why read the science of getting rich: key benefits & insights, 7 rules for happiness: your guide to a joyful life, best tips for students to improve their study, essential improvements for nepali students' education, facilitating foreign students by u.s. government, challenges faced by international students in america, how does reading affect your brain, why there are 60 seconds in a minute: the historical reason, buddha was born in nepal: discover lumbini’s significance, 20 essential life lessons to learn early, 20 reading rules that transformed my life, 20 life lessons i wish i knew at 20: wisdom from 40, how bill gates reads: tips every reader can learn, what actually matters in your 20s: key life lessons, 10 daily self-growth questions for personal development, apply online.

Find Detailed information on:

• Top Colleges & Universities
• Popular Courses
• Exam Preparation
• Admissions & Eligibility
• College Rankings

Sign Up or Login

Not a Member Yet! Join Us it's Free.

Already have account Please Login