Over the past decade, creative thinking has gained increasing recognition as a major educational priority. Creativity is commonly understood as a fundamental competence in education, work, and broader society, given its role in promoting individual well-being, social engagement, and economic innovation. International organisations highlight creativity and other 21st-century skills as essential educational outcomes, alongside literacy and numeracy, and associate them with higher educational attainment, improved employment prospects, and overall societal progress (Beghetto, 2021; Grey & Morris, 2024; OECD, 2023). This emphasis is also reflected in international large-scale assessment studies, where creative thinking was assessed for the first time within the OECD PISA 2022 study, in which Slovenia participated alongside 63 other countries. The PISA 2022 assessment operationalises so-called “little c” creativity through tasks embedded in four domains: written expression, visual expression, social problem solving, and scientific problem solving. These domains represent both general and domain-specific dimensions of creativity, while the tasks were designed to elicit either divergent thinking or original and creative ideas (OECD, 2024a). In addition to students’ performance, PISA also examined factors related to creative thinking through accompanying questionnaires, such as supportive home and school environments and perceived creative self-efficacy (OECD, 2019).

The initial findings of PISA 2022 study revealed concerning results for Slovenia. Slovenian 15-year-old students performed below the OECD average on the creative thinking scale. Only 73% reached the basic proficiency level, and merely 16% achieved the highest levels, compared to the OECD average of 27%. Furthermore, Slovenian students rated themselves lower than their OECD peers on several scales related to creative thinking, including creative self-efficacy, creative school, peer and family environment, creative activities in and outside school, and creativity and openness to intellect, art, and reflection. These aspects have also been identified in previous research as important predictors of students’ learning outcomes (e.g. Beghetto, 2006; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019; Wang & Degol, 2016). Their relevance is particularly pronounced in the Slovenian context, where the development of creative thinking has not previously been a priority in educational policy. The results are also noteworthy in light of Slovenian students’ declining performance in reading, mathematics, and science (OECD, 2023). Taken together, they point to a clear need for more systematic attention to creativity within the Slovenian educational system.

In response, the Slovenian Ministry of Education launched a project in 2024 aimed at gaining a more in-depth understanding of the state and needs in fostering the creative potential of gifted students, from the perspectives of individuals, educational institutions, and society, including policy makers. One key objective is an international comparative analysis based on PISA 2022 data and the identification of good practices from abroad. The first results of this study are presented in the following sections, focusing on two main research questions: (i) how do the results of Slovenian students on the scales of different aspects of creative thinking compare with those of countries that rank at the top according to the PISA creative thinking scale or the Global Creativity Index (i.e. Finland, France, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Switzerland)?, and (ii) which of these aspects of creative thinking significantly predict students’ performance in creative thinking on the PISA 2022 scale in Slovenia?

As such, the study contributes to research on creativity in education by offering a national-level examination of creative thinking and its key predictors. Using large-scale assessment data, the findings provide evidence-based implications for educational policy and practice and strengthen international comparative perspectives on fostering creative thinking across educational contexts.

For the analysis, data from the PISA 2022 survey was used, which includes students aged 15 years and 3 months to 16 years and 2 months. The analyses included representative samples of students from all six compared countries, namely 6,721 students from Slovenia, 10,239 students from Finland, 6,770 students from France, 5,046 students from the Netherlands, 6,606 students from Singapore, and 6,829 students from Switzerland. In PISA 2022, the student questionnaire was used to identify different aspects of students’ creative thinking in all compared countries. For the analyses, we used separate scales addressing students’ self-reported creative self-efficacy, creative school and class environment, creative peers and family environment, creative activities at school, creative activities outside school, creativity and openness to intellect, and openness for art and reflection. All scales showed good internal consistency in the PISA 2022 sample in all compared countries, with coefficients ranging from α = 0.76 to α = 0.94 (OCED, 2024b). To address the first research question, standardized internationally-compared creative thinking indices for all six compared countries were analysed using data from the PISA 2022 database. Descriptive analyses were conducted for all aspects of creative thinking. To address the second research question, only the PISA 2022 database for Slovenia was used, and the analyses were conducted on a sample of Slovenian 15-year-old students. First, correlational analyses were performed to examine the associations between students’ creative thinking achievement and the seven aspects of creative thinking. Subsequently, linear regression analyses were conducted to estimate the effect sizes and explanatory power of all seven aspects of creative thinking (creative self-efficacy, creative school and class environment, creative peers and family environment, creative activities at school, creative activities outside school, creativity and openness to intellect, and openness for art and reflection) in explaining students’ creative thinking achievement on PISA 2022 scale. Prior to the analyses, assumptions were checked for linearity among variables, independence of errors, homoscedasticity, approximate normality of residuals, and absence of multicollinearity among predictors (Field, 2018). All assumptions were satisfactorily met. Data were analysed using the statistical programmes IBM SPSS 30.0 and the IEA IDBAnalyzer Version 5.0.48, which, in processing data due to two-stage sampling in the study in addition to the use of weights for individual students (W_FSTUWT), also allows us to use sample weights to properly assess the standard parameter errors in the population using the Bootstrap method.

Across the compared countries, Swiss 15-year-old students reported the most positive values on all creative thinking scales, whereas students in the Netherlands reported the least positive values. Students in France reported the lowest engagement in creative activities at school. Compared to the OECD average, Slovenian students reported lower or similar values on most scales and the lowest levels of openness to intellect among the compared countries. In Slovenia, the analysed aspects of creative thinking explained 10% of the variance in creative thinking achievement. Significant predictors included a creative peers and family environment, creativity and openness to intellect, and openness for art and reflection (positive predictors), as well as participation in creative activities outside school and a creative school and class environment (negative predictors). These findings are consistent with international research emphasising the role of individual and contextual factors in shaping students’ creative thinking (e.g., Smare & Elfatihi, 2024; van der Zanden et al., 2020; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019). The positive associations of a supportive peers and family environment and openness to acquiring new knowledge highlight the importance of social and motivational resources, while the negative associations related to creative activities outside school and supportive school environments may reflect compensatory mechanisms observed in previous large-scale studies (e.g. Kagan & Dumas, 2025; OECD, 2024a). The study provides an empirical foundation for identifying key leverage points for fostering creative thinking in education in Slovenia. The comparatively lower levels of key creative thinking aspects and achievements among Slovenian students underscore the critical role of schools in addressing disparities in opportunities to develop creativity and point to the need for a more systematic integration of creativity into everyday teaching and learning practices. Overall, the findings reinforce the importance of prioritising creative thinking as a core component of a high-quality and equitable education system, aligned with broader international educational goals.

Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4 Beghetto, R. A. (2021). Creative learning in education. In M. L. Kern, & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive education (pp. 473–491). Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64537-3_19 Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Grey, S., & Morris, P. (2022). Capturing the spark: PISA, twenty-first century skills and the reconstruction of creativity. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 22(2), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.2100981 Kagan, S., & Dumas, D. (2025). More creative activities, lower creative ability: Exploring an unexpected PISA finding. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 59, e70035. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70035 OECD. (2019). PISA 2021 Creative thinking framework (Third draft). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org//content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/creative-thinking/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en. OECD. (2024a). PISA 2022 results (Volume III): Creative minds, creative schools. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-iii_765ee8c2-en.html OECD. (2024b). PISA 2022 Technical report. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en Smare, Z., & Elfatihi, M. (2024). A systematic review on factors influencing the development of children’s creativity. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 5(2), 176–200. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202452371 van der Zanden, P. J. A. C., Meijer, P. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2020). A review study about creativity in adolescence: Where is the social context? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100702 Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrera, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1 Vincent-Lancrin, S. et al. (2019). Fostering students' creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school, educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en.