Impact of Different Educational Environments on

Creativity
Abdul Haseeb
Riphah International University, Department of Engineering Management, Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract:

1. Introduction
The day soul walked on the land, they had
curiosity and tried to acknowledge the
environment and have evolution. And thus
they hunted for new solutions and
perpetually nourished their imagination.
Whats being creative? Whats the human?
Creativity
likewise
as
alternative
psychological feature constructs, like
intelligence, intellect, talent, etc., is an
abstract construct, and isn't supported
tangible, objective physical reality. Its
thought of in concert of the final potential
and anyone is often thought of additional or
less inventive. The natural talent is
additional or less consistent with
circumstances (Rad, Khaledi, & Abedi,
2014).
Creativity perhaps a construct of individual
variations that is intended to elucidate why
some individuals have higher potential to
provide new solutions to recent issues than
others. It leads us to change the means we
predict regarding things and is formed as the
actuation that moves civilization forward
(Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). In turn,
inventive accomplishment refers to the
particular realization of this potential in
terms of real-life accomplishments (Carson,
Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). Though authors
use different terminologies such as Little-C
vs. Big-C (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) to
describe this classification, it appears that
the underlying taxonomy is the same.
There are quite above sixty definitions of
creativity with no single trustworthy and set
definition, or operational. Nevertheless, the
assembly of a concept or product that's both
novel and helpful is often accepted as a
central characteristic of creativeness
(Barron, 1955; Mumford, 2003a, 2003b).

Increasing agreement amongst creativeness

researchers suggests that creativity within
the individual is dependent upon multiple
things (Batey & Furnham, 2006).
Gender
One of the areas of bias study that are
significantly dynamic in recent years is
evaluation variations that correlate with
gender (Naderi, Abdullah, Aizan, Sharir, &
Kumar, 2009). In all probability the
foremost heralded variations are within the
space of faculty ability, wherever check
scores are presupposed to predict the
applicants
succeeding
college-level
performance. Generally, the tests work well,
however there are exceptions. In another
study (Naderi et al., 2009) found that, in
some instances, weekday knowledge could
under predict college- grade for girls in
arithmetic. The scores recommend that
females performance in college-level
arithmetic are going to be below they prove
to be.
Age
Age is Associate as independent variable
quantity for the current study. Once we talk
over with age relationship to creativity, we
have a tendency to area unit bearing on
relation between students at one age and
students at another age. Our purpose is to
look at the connection between age and
creativity stronger or weaker. Do age and
gender predict Creativity? If affirmative,
whats their level of prediction (low,
moderate or high)? These area unit some
queries that were pondered on during this
study.

Environment of Education
Environment of education is another
independent variable for the current study.
We are looking for the relationship of
creativity with educational environments.
Once we have that relation than we will
have a tendency to find the strength of their
relation as either it is strong, week or
moderate.
Creativity is an essential individual
distinction construct, yet has received very
little educational attention compared to
allied areas like intelligence. In part, the
deficiency of studies is also connected to the
difficulties in defining and activity the
creative thinking dependent variable (Batey
& Furnham, 2006). Creative thinking is also
defined in relation to the ideas of novelty
and utility (Batey & Furnham, 2006). One
amongst the foremost common strategies of
examining creative thinking utilizes the
multi-trait multi-method approach (Batey &
Furnham, 2006).
2. Literature View
Based on varied analysis studies, creative
thinking affects instructional progress. Its
necessary to listen to the current ability of
scholars and its result on learning method
and its mediator variables. Santrock,
considers creative thinking as the ability to
consider things in novel in weird ways and
reach to new solutions (Ghorbani, Kazemi,
Shafaghi, & Massah, 2013). Most studies
have found no gender differences in
creativity, and those that have found
differences have not found any consistent
pattern of differences (Kaufman & Baer,
2006). A research had been conducted by
(Naderi et al., 2009) on Iranian and

Malaysian Students to examine creativity,

age and gender as predicators of educational
achievements by using the instrument
named as KTCPI (Khatena-Torrance
Creative Perception Inventory) in which
they found age, gender and creativity as low
predicators of academic achievements
(R=.378, R Square= .143). (Adebiyi &
others, 2013) did an investigation to analyze
on mother tongue education policy and its
impact on childrens accomplishment in
reading skills. The study adopted the
irregular
pre-test
experimental
and
management cluster as style. 3 analysis
queries were used as a guide to the study.
The results indicates that kids within the
rural faculties tutored within the mothertongue performed higher than those from
urban faculties who were taught in English
Language in reading skills. (MehrAfza,
2004) conducted a research entitled: The
study of creativity and
academic
achievement among 384 of students (boys
and girls) examined in Tabriz high schools.
This research had been done in random and
the data collected by Abedis questionnaire
of creativity and CGPA is used for
educational evaluation. The statistical data
analysis shows that there is no difference in
the overall creativity scores between boys
and girls. (Chan, 2005) asked 212 gifted
Chinese students to self assess their
creativity, family hardiness, and emotional
intelligence, and found no significant gender
differences for all constructs. (Deary, Strand,
Smith, & Fernandes, 2007) studies
conjointly the psychological feature ability
distribution in 80,000 plus students. There
have been no vital mean variations in
psychological feature check scores between
3

genders however there was

extremely vital distinction in their
standard deviation. Males were a lot of
at the low and high extremes of
psychological feature ability (Douglas
and Ruston; 2006). Douglas and Rush
ton (2006) found a degree of bi-serial
size of 0.12 affirmative males on the
SAT that provides an honest reside of
general creativity as manifested
through college of learned talents in
high school graduating samples.
Wendy and Johnson (2007)
investigates 436 (188 males; 248
females) participants (ages were 1879) from Australia, Great Britain and
North America). Their result have
shown that there was a awfully little
gender distinction in general rational
aptitude however males clearly
performed higher on tests of verbal
usage and sensory activity speed.
Ramstad and Ramseur (2000)
investigated on 105 German students
and state that male self-estimates
were considerably higher for logicalmathematical and spatial creativity,
whereas feminine estimates were
considerably higher for musical and
social creativities.

References
Adebiyi, M. E., & others. (2013). Mother-Tongue Education Policy: Effects on Childrens
Achievement in Reading Skills. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 2, 38
43.
Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 315.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the
scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355
429.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure
of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 3750.
Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of
Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Prufrock Journal, 16(2-3), 4756.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational
achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 1321.
Ghorbani, M., Kazemi, H., Shafaghi, M., & Massah, H. (2013). An Assessment of relation
between self efficacy and Cognitive/Emotive creativity. Global Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 2(1). Retrieved from http://world-educationcenter.org/index.php/gjgc/article/viewArticle/1699

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligent testing with Torrance. Creativity Research Journal,
18(1), 99102.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity.
Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 112. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
MehrAfza, M. (2004). The relationship between child-rearing practices, creativity and academic
achievement among students in high schools city of Tabriz, Iran. Iran University of
Tabriz, Tabriz.
Naderi, H., Abdullah, R., Aizan, H. T., Sharir, J., & Kumar, V. (2009). Creativity, age and gender
as predictors of academic achievement among undergraduate students. Journal of
American Science, 5(5), 101112.
Rad, A. F., Khaledi, M. A., & Abedi, J. (2014). The Relationship between Students Grades and
Their Creativity. NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ (Switzerland
Research Park Journal), 104(2). Retrieved from
http://naukpublication.org/index.php/NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNGSCHWEIZ/article/view/616