CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of creative thinking in children's scientific reasoning

Willemsen, Robin H., de Vink, Isabelle C., Kroesbergen, Evelyn H., Lazonder, Ard W.·2023·Thinking Skills and Creativity
DOI 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101375
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101375

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Ayas, 2014, Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the creative scientific ability test, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195, 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.001 · DOI
  2. Barbot, 2016, The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC, Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 178, 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.005 · DOI
  3. Barrow, 2010, Encouraging creativity with scientific inquiry, Creative Education, 01, 1, 10.4236/ce.2010.11001 · DOI
  4. Bowyer-Crane, 2005, Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure?, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 189, 10.1348/000709904X22674 · DOI
  5. Brophy, 2001, Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers, Creativity Research Journal, 13, 439, 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_20 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Chen, 1999, All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy, Child Development, 70, 1098, 10.1111/1467-8624.00081 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chinn, 2002, Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks, Science Education, 86, 175, 10.1002/sce.10001 · DOI
  8. Corazza, 2018, The creative process in science and engineering, The creative process: Perspectives from multiple domains, 155, 10.1057/978-1-137-50563-7_6 · DOI
  9. Cramond, 2005, A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance tests of creative thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium, Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 283, 10.1177/001698620504900402 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dake, 1991, The visual definition of visual creativity, Journal of Visual Literacy, 11, 100, 10.1080/23796529.1991.11674461 · DOI
  11. De Haan, 2011, Science education: Teaching creative science thinking, Science (New York, N.Y.), 334, 1499, 10.1126/science.1207918 · DOI
  12. DeYoung, 2008, Cognitive abilities involved in insight problem solving: An individual differences model, Creativity Research Journal, 20, 278, 10.1080/10400410802278719 · DOI
  13. Engelmann, 2016, Fostering scientific reasoning in education–meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies, Educational Research and Evaluation, 22, 333, 10.1080/13803611.2016.1240089 · DOI
  14. Gajda, 2017, Exploring creative learning in the classroom: A multi-method approach, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 250, 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.002 · DOI
  15. Hooper, 2008, Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53
  16. Huang, 2017, The relative influences of domain knowledge and domain-general divergent thinking on scientific creativity and mathematical creativity, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 1, 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.001 · DOI
  17. Klahr, 1988, Dual space search during scientific reasoning, Cognitive Science, 12, 1, 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Klahr, 1993, Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study, Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111, 10.1006/cogp.1993.1003 · DOI
  19. Koerber, 2019, Individual differences in early scientific thinking: Assessment, cognitive influences, and their relevance for science learning, Journal of Cognition and Development, 20, 510, 10.1080/15248372.2019.1620232 · DOI
  20. Köksal, 2023, The origins of hypothesis testing: Young children’s developing understanding of information seeking compared to effect production, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 694, 10.1080/17405629.2023.2212901 · DOI
  21. Krummenauer, J., & Kuntze, S. (2019, February). Primary students’ reasoning and argumentation based on statistical data [Paper presentation]. Eleventh Congress of the European Society for research in mathematics education, Utrecht, the Netherlands, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02398118.
  22. Kuhn, 2005, Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables?, Psychological Science, 16, 866, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01628.x · DOI
  23. Kuhn, 2008, What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills?, Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512, 10.1080/07370000802391745 · DOI
  24. Kuhn, 2009, Exploring the nature of divergent thinking: A multilevel analysis, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 116, 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.004 · DOI
  25. Lazonder, 2021, Patterns of development in children's scientific reasoning: Results from a three-year longitudinal study, Journal of Cognition and Development, 22, 108, 10.1080/15248372.2020.1814293 · DOI
  26. Lazonder, 2012, Bit by bit or all at once? Splitting up the inquiry task to promote children's scientific reasoning, Learning and Instruction, 22, 458, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.005 · DOI
  27. Lazonder, 2021, Development and initial validation of a performance-based scientific reasoning test for children, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100951 · DOI
  28. Lazonder, 2022, Development and validation of RATje: A remote associates test for Dutch children, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101042 · DOI
  29. Lee, 2014, A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the remote associates test, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 446, 10.1037/a0036773 · DOI
  30. Lee, 2013, The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking processes, Intelligence, 41, 306, 10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.008 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lee, 2007, Factors affecting problem finding depending on degree of structure of problem situation, The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 113, 10.3200/JOER.101.2.113-125 · DOI
  32. Lin, 2016, The developmental trends of different creative potentials in relation to children's reasoning abilities: From a cognitive theoretical perspective, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 36, 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.08.004 · DOI
  33. Lubart, 2016, Creativity and convergent thinking: Reflections, connections and practical considerations, Вестник Российского Университета Дружбы Народов. Серия: Психология и Педагогика, 4, 7
  34. Lubart, T., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). EPOC: Évaluation du potentiel créatif. Hogrefe. · DOI
  35. Manlove, 2009, Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies, Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 795, 10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.010 · DOI
  36. Masnick, 2017, Data-driven belief revision in children and adults, Journal of Cognition and Development, 18, 87, 10.1080/15248372.2016.1168824 · DOI
  37. Mayer, 2014, Scientific reasoning in elementary school children: Assessment and relations with cognitive abilities, Learning and Instruction, 29, 43, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.005 · DOI
  38. Medeiros, 2014, Not too much, not too little: The influence of constraints on creative problem solving, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 198, 10.1037/a0036210 · DOI
  39. Medeiros, 2018, Timing is everything: Examining the role of constraints throughout the creative process, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 471, 10.1037/aca0000148 · DOI
  40. Mednick, 1962, The associative basis of the creative process, Psychological Review, 69, 220, 10.1037/h0048850 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Patston, 2021, What is creativity in education? A qualitative study of international curricula, Journal of Advanced Academics, 32, 207, 10.1177/1932202X20978356 · DOI
  42. Piekny, 2013, Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis generation skills, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 153, 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02082.x · DOI
  43. Pizzini, 1989, A rationale for and the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education, Science Education, 73, 523, 10.1002/sce.3730730502 · DOI
  44. Quillien, J.B. (2019). The roles of convergent, divergent thinking, and contextual focus during scientific reasoning: Birth of the “Z” model (Doctoral dissertation). https://hdl.handle.net/11299/217149.
  45. Rosseel, 2012, Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling, Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1, 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Runco, 1988, Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 211, 10.1007/BF01538162 · DOI
  47. Schacter, 2006, How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students’ achievement?, Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47, 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01266.x · DOI
  48. Schlatter, 2020, Individual differences in children's development of scientific reasoning through inquiry-based instruction: Who needs additional guidance?, Frontiers in Psychology: Developmental Psychology, 11, 904, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00904 · DOI
  49. Schoevers, E.M. (2019). Promoting creativity in elementary mathematics education (Doctoral dissertation). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/386072.
  50. Sternberg, 2020, The relation of scientific creativity and evaluation of scientific impact to scientific reasoning and general intelligence, Journal of Intelligence, 8, 17, 10.3390/jintelligence8020017 · DOI
  51. Taber, 2018, The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education, Research in Science Education, 48, 1273, 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Ulger, 2015, The structure of creative thinking: Visual and verbal areas, Creativity Research Journal, 27, 102, 10.1080/10400419.2015.992689 · DOI
  53. Van de Sande, 2019, The linguistic nature of children's scientific reasoning, Learning and Instruction, 62, 20, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.02.002 · DOI
  54. Van der Graaf, 2018, Individual differences in the development of scientific thinking in kindergarten, Learning and Instruction, 56, 1, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.005 · DOI
  55. Van der Graaf, 2019, A combined approach to strengthen children's scientific thinking: Direct instruction on scientific reasoning and training of teacher's verbal support, International Journal of Science Education, 41, 1119, 10.1080/09500693.2019.1594442 · DOI
  56. Watson, 1998, The beginning of statistical inference: Comparing two data sets, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 145, 10.1023/A:1003594832397 · DOI
  57. Willemsen, 2020, The structure of creativity in primary education: An empirical confirmation of the amusement park theory, The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 857, 10.1002/jocb.411 · DOI
  58. Wolf, 2013, Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 913, 10.1177/0013164413495237 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Zimmerman, 2000, The development of scientific reasoning skills, Developmental Review, 20, 99, 10.1006/drev.1999.0497 · DOI
  60. Zimmerman, 2007, The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school, Developmental Review, 27, 172, 10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Willemsen, R. H., de Vink, I. C., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Lazonder, A. W.
ORCID
Venue
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
49
Pages
101375
ISSN
1871-1871
DOI
10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101375
Cited by
17
References
4
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review