Exploration of Differences In Students Creative Thinking Abilities Viewed from Perspective Gender and Domicile: Rasch Model Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32585/jbl.v7i2.7642Keywords:
Exploration, creative thinking, rasch modelAbstract
The purpose of this study was to explore differences in students creative thinking abilities based on gender and domicile. The research method used was descriptive quantitative. Sampling used proportional random sampling technique at Public Junior High Schools in South Konawe Regency. The research instrument used a creative thinking test as primary data. The data analysis technique used the winsteps program with scalogram analysis. The results showed that female students tended to be superior in fluency, originality, and elaboration, both at very high and low levels of creative thinking ability, while male students showed superiority in flexibility. This difference can be influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors that play a role in cognitive development and creativity. In addition, differences in creative thinking abilities were also found based on domicile. Urban students are superior in several indicators at very high levels of creative thinking ability, but are more susceptible to decreased creativity at very low levels compared to rural students. Environmental factors such as access to educational resources, intellectual stimulation, and higher social support in urban areas play a role in this difference. Overall, these findings confirm that gender and domicile significantly influence students creative thinking abilities.
Downloads
References
Abraham, A., Thybusch, K., Pieritz, K., & Hermann, C. (2014). Gender differences in creative thinking: Behavioral and fMRI findings. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8, 39–51.
Al-Suleiman, N. (2009). Cross-cultural studies and creative thinking abilities. Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 1(1), 1–41.
Arikunto, S. (2000). Manajemen penelitian (edisi baru). Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75–105.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69.
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 348–364.
Da Costa, S., Paez, D., Sanchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second-order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.
Glaveanu, V. P., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 12–21.
Guichard, S., & Grande, C. (2018). Differences between preschool children with and without special educational needs: Functioning, participation, and environmental barriers at home and in community settings. Frontiers in Education, 3, 7.
Harris, E. O. (2003). Female visual artists’ perspectives on creativity and creative talent development: Obstacles and opportunities (Doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Canada.
Hong, E., Peng, Y., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Wu, J. (2013). Domain-general and domain-specific creative thinking tests: Effects of gender and item content on test performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(2), 89–105.
Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are students’ learning styles discipline specific? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(5), 363–375.
Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805
Klainin-Yobas, P., Ramirez, D., Fernandez, Z., Sarmiento, J., Thanoi, W., Ignacio, J., & Lau, Y. (2016). Predicting effect of mindfulness on psychological well-being among undergraduate students: A structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 63–68.
Kumar, L. (2014). A study of originality among secondary school students in relation to locale, ethnicity, type of institution, and sex. Politicindia, 6, 13.
Kumar, L., & Kumari, P. (2016). Convergent and divergent thinking among secondary school students in relation to ethnicity, locale, institution type, and sex. Culturally Designed Pedagogy in India, 41(4), 111.
Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Educational and social correlates of the digital divide for rural and urban children in China. Computers and Education, 60(1), 197–209.
Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2017). Teaching creative thinking. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.
Matud, M. P., Rodriguez, C., & Grande, J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1137–1147.
Nielsen, M. W., Bloch, C. W., & Schiebinger, L. (2018). Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 726–734.
Opoku-Asare, N. A. A., & Siaw, A. O. (2015). Rural-urban disparity in students’ academic performance in visual arts education. SAGE Open, 5(4), 2158244015612523.
Perez-Fabello, M. J., & Campos, A. (2011). Dissociative experiences and creativity in fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 38–41.
Piaw, C. Y. (2014). Effects of gender and thinking style on students’ creative thinking ability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 5135–5139.
Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.
Robinson, K. (2016). Creative schools. New York: Penguin Books.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Shen, W., Liu, C., Shi, C., & Yuan, Y. (2015). Gender differences in creative thinking. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(8), 1380–1389.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.
Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: What is creative and what is not. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(1), 80–90.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi pemodelan Rasch pada assessment pendidikan. Bandung: Trim Komunikata.
Suyuti, S. (2024). The importance of creativity and innovation in education. Education Studies and Teaching Journal, 1(1), 80–92.
Syahrizal, H., & Jailani, M. S. (2023). Jenis-jenis penelitian kuantitatif dan kualitatif. QOSIM: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial dan Humaniora, 1(1), 13–23.
Ulger, K., & Morsunbul, U. (2016). Differences in creative thinking between male and female students. Online Journal of Counseling and Education, 5(4).
Yousaf, A., & Ghayas, S. (2015). Impact of perceived social support and gender on creativity among university students. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 3–16.
Zhao, Y. (2021). A comparison of creative thinking abilities among urban, migrant, and rural adolescents in Western China.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 syafrial syafrial, Abdul Kadir, Zainuddin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with the Journal of Biology Learning agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
