International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025, pp. 2154~2166

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v14i3.31793  2154

Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in

teenagers: a study in the Kazakh context

Aikun Kuspanova1, Bakhadurkhan Abdimanapov1, Kulyash Kaimuldinova1, Emin Atasoy2,

Armanay Savanchiyeva1
1
Department of Geography and Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Geography, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University,
Almaty, Kazakhstan
2
Department of Social Sciences Education Major Science, Faculty of Education, Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This study investigates the influence of socioeconomic factors on the
creative thinking of teenagers in Kazakhstan, as perceived by parents and
Received Jun 23, 2024 teachers. Creative thinking is recognized as a vital skill in modern education,
Revised Feb 16, 2025 yet its relationship with socioeconomic factors remains underexplored in the
Accepted Feb 21, 2025 Kazakh context. This research addresses this gap by examining how school
and family environments, shaped by socioeconomic status (SES), impact
teenagers' creative abilities. Using a combination of open and closed-ended
Keywords: questionnaires, data were collected from 121 parents and 922 teachers across
Kazakhstan. Spearman correlation analysis revealed a significant
Creative thinking relationship between SES and creative thinking, with higher socioeconomic
Family conditions correlating with greater creativity. These findings suggest that
Public schools enhancing socioeconomic conditions in educational and family settings can
Socioeconomic factor foster creative thinking in teenagers. The study concludes by emphasizing
Socioeconomic status the need for targeted educational policies that address socioeconomic
Teenagers disparities to support creative development in students.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Bakhadurkhan Abdimanapov
Department of Geography and Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Geography
Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University
Dostyk Avenue, 13 Building, 050010, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards creativity in the field of education [1].
According to Fischer and Barabasch [2], teachers can see student creativity through the following five
categories of models: the presence of student self-reflection, the ability to make independent decisions,
interest and motivation, and their ability to do things and have original new ideas. People's creativity can
influence innovative discoveries [3].
Creativity is a human potential and a talent that should be used every day. Human creativity is
closely linked to innovation, imagination, intelligence, and well-being [4]. Creativity is important for society
and for the individual. For a person, creativity is important for self-expression and well-being; a person
strives for a sense of self-knowledge and the meaning of life through creativity [5]. In addition, the literacy of
society shapes the socioeconomic situation of the state. According to Sawyer [6], creativity is determined by
society. A creative teenager is an independent person who has the ability to think divergently, who finds a
method and solution to any problem, an unconventional thinker who masters trends and factors. Therefore,
creative thinking and creativity have received global attention, and the training of a functionally competent
student in the education sector has become a major concern for many research scientists.

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2155

Creativity is a unique and independent ability of a person to think in a different way [4], [7]. It also
plays a pivotal role in learning, adaptation, and problem-solving. Creativity studies are interdisciplinary in
nature, covering social, individual, organizational, historical, evolutionary, educational, economic,
developmental, cognitive, clinical, and behavioral perspectives [4]. Learning to cope with negative emotions
and thoughts is especially important for creative production [5]. Typically, a person thinks reproductively
about ways to solve problems, while a creative person thinks productively and looks for the simplest ways to
solve a problem. If the problem is routine, the search space is narrow, and the wider the search space is, the
greater the probability of considering innovative solutions [8]. Creative thinking is now considered an
innovative area in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) studies [9].
Teenagers are known to be independent high school students who know how to draw their own
conclusions, have their own views, and have a certain level of creative thinking. Teenage years are the period
from 10 to 19 years, marking the growth and development of a person after childhood. This phase describes
the transitional period of physical and psychological development [10]. Teenagers face unique vulnerability
factors related to schooling [11]. Creativity in everyday life is widespread among teenagers [12]. In informal
situations, observing the work of others in a certain partnership, a teenager behaves freely and dominantly.
This is all related to the positive impact of a comfortable and creative environment on the teenager [13].
Environmental factors can play a significant role in the personal development of a teenager. Generally, the
personality of teenagers is often linked to their cultural and social capital [14].
Formal education plays a crucial role in developing the creative abilities of teenagers, as well as
students of all ages. Educators are responsible for stimulating the creative abilities of teenagers, forming
creative qualities and attitudes, and teaching creative thinking and problem-solving skills. This responsibility
should be important not only for teachers but also for schools and families. Teachers, schools, and families
must create appropriate opportunities and environments to foster students' creative abilities [15]. Factors
influencing a child's educational achievements can include family background, the child's place in the family,
socioeconomic status (SES), and relationships with family members. Family income also affects the
educational opportunities and academic performance of teenagers. The SES of a family influences the quality
of life and growth of teenagers [16]. Children's well-being is positively associated with SES [17]. Creativity
cannot be forced; it can only be nurtured through development and encouragement. To foster and develop a
teenager's creative abilities, it is necessary to create conditions of psychological safety and freedom, as
environmental factors significantly influence creative abilities. During the teenage years, creative abilities are
formed under the influence of various environmental factors [18], as each stage of human development
consists of new demands, competencies, problems, and opportunities.
In recent years, scholars have been actively studying various environmental factors that they believe
may influence a student's creativity [1], [19]–[21]. At the same time, some foreign scientists believe that the
creative thinking of students can also be affected by a positive school climate; the communication style
between parents and children in the family; parents' education; teachers' creative skills, behavior,
support, and motivation; and students' quality of life and social and economic conditions [6], [22]–[30]. The
physical-geographic location and socioeconomic situation of countries also affect the creative thinking of
students. Educational performance in countries with low socioeconomic conditions is at the same
level [31]–[33].
The main aim of the study is to investigate the hypothesis that socioeconomic factors influence the
creative thinking of teenagers by analyzing the views and opinions of Kazakh parents and teachers. The
outcome of this research will be to present the findings for consideration in the education process, exploring
the impact of socioeconomic variables on the creative thought processes of teenagers from the perspective of
Kazakh parents and school educators. Several factors were taken into consideration when presenting the
research topic. Firstly, the impact of socioeconomic factors on adolescent creative thinking is well-known,
but this area still requires further and more comprehensive study. Some scholars reject this view [7], [34].
Secondly, there are no Kazakhstani studies in this field. Thirdly, teenagers attending public schools tend to
have lower creativity and functional literacy compared to those enrolled in intellectual or private schools
[35], although the SES of students in public schools varies widely. Fourthly, the approach of Kazakhstani
teachers and parents is crucial. This research is significant as it seeks to address a critical gap in the literature
on the influence of socioeconomic factors on creative thinking in the Kazakh context. The novelty of this
study lies in its focus on the perceptions of both parents and teachers, offering insights into the cultural and
educational dynamics that shape creativity in Kazakh students.
This study explores the relationship between socioeconomic factors and the creative thinking of
teenagers in Kazakhstan. The conceptual framework of this research is grounded in the environmental and
social cognitive theories of creativity. These theories suggest that creativity is not an isolated skill but is shaped
by a combination of individual, social, and environmental factors, such as family background, SES, and access
to resources [4], [23]. SES is a multidimensional construct that typically encompasses family income, parental
education level, and occupational status. Numerous studies have highlighted that children from higher
Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in teenagers: a study in the … (Aikun Kuspanova)
2156  ISSN: 2252-8822

socioeconomic backgrounds often have access to enriched learning environments, better resources, and broader
cultural experiences, all of which are conducive to the development of creativity [36], [37].
This study builds on this body of work by examining the specific impact of SES on creative thinking
in teenagers in the Kazakhstani context. Furthermore, school environments play a critical role in creativity
development. Schools with better socioeconomic standing typically have more resources, innovative
technologies, and teaching methodologies that encourage creative expression and problem-solving skills [38].
This study hypothesizes that students attending intellectual and private schools, which are generally better
equipped than public schools, are likely to exhibit higher levels of creative thinking.
The theoretical framework guiding this study is rooted in Vygotsky’s social development theory,
which emphasizes that social interactions and the environment are critical in cognitive development,
including creativity. According to Vygotsky, cognitive functions, including creative thinking, develop
through social interactions and the internalization of cultural tools and resources provided by the environment
[39], [40]. This theory supports the idea that SES and school environments significantly influence the
development of creative thinking. Additionally, Maslow's hierarchy of needs also serves as a theoretical
basis. Maslow argued that higher-order cognitive processes, including creativity, flourish when basic needs
such as safety, nutrition, and belonging are met [41].
In this context, teenagers from wealthier families, who likely have their basic needs consistently
fulfilled, are in a better position to engage in creative activities. On the other hand, students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds may struggle to focus on creative tasks due to unmet physiological and
psychological needs. Thus, the research questions of this study are framed around how socioeconomic factors
and school environments interact to influence creative thinking in teenagers, with a particular focus on
comparing the experiences of students attending public, private, and intellectual schools in Kazakhstan.
SES and its role in fostering creativity have been extensively studied. SES typically includes family
income, parental education, and occupational status, which affect access to resources, learning environments,
and cultural experiences that shape creative thinking [2]. Zhao and Yang [23] highlight that higher SES
provides students with enriched cultural experiences, directly contributing to creative development.
Numerous studies confirm that students from wealthier families are more likely to engage in creative
activities due to the availability of resources and opportunities [24], [42].
Educational environments also play a critical role in fostering creativity. Schools with modern
technology, project-based learning, and creative teaching methods produce more creative students than
schools in underfunded areas [21]. Several research [22], [36] found that students in well-resourced schools
exhibited higher levels of creativity due to access to technology and innovative curricula. However, schools
in low-income areas often lack the resources necessary to foster creativity, contributing to disparities in
educational outcomes [31]–[33], [43].
The Kazakh context presents unique challenges. Kazakhstan's educational system has been shaped
by socioeconomic disparities, with significant differences in resource availability between rural and urban
schools [35]. Previous research [31]–[33], [35] emphasized the impact of socioeconomic factors on
educational outcomes in Kazakhstan, particularly in underfunded public schools. The Kazakh government’s
recent focus on improving education has highlighted the importance of creativity, but socioeconomic
challenges remain prevalent, especially in less affluent regions. This study seeks to contribute to the limited
literature on how SES impacts creativity in Kazakhstan, filling a critical research gap.
This research is significant as it tries to address a critical gap in the literature on the influence of
socioeconomic factors on creative thinking in the Kazakh context. The novelty of this study lies in its focus
on the perceptions of parents and teachers, offering insights into the cultural and educational dynamics that
shape creativity in Kazakh students. To guide this investigation, these research questions were formulated:
− How do socioeconomic factors within the school environment influence the creative thinking of Kazakh
teenagers?
− What is the impact of family SES on the creative abilities of teenagers as perceived by parents and
teachers?
− Are there significant differences in the creative thinking of students attending public, private, and
intellectual schools in Kazakhstan?

2. METHOD
2.1. Research design
This study employs a cross-sectional survey design to explore the influence of socioeconomic
factors on the creative thinking of teenagers in Kazakhstan. In several other studies, the relationship between
the social and economic status of the family and the development of children is considered in various aspects.
Scientists use many strategies when studying the SES of a family, and tools for its measurement are selected

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025: 2154-2166
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2157

in accordance with the goals and objectives of the research [44]. Socioeconomic factors are involved in
almost all components of human psychological development [45]. Key concepts include education, income,
SES, social class [46], and disadvantaged family situation [28], which are the main components of
socioeconomic factors in this research. To assess the validity and reliability of the survey researchers
carefully considered a number of factors. The authors analyzed the relationship between SES, social status,
and disadvantaged family situation and teenagers' creative thinking, as viewed by educators and parents. This
research was conducted in two stages, utilizing a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to
collect and analyze data. The study's design was chosen to capture the perceptions of a large sample of
participants across various regions of Kazakhstan, providing a comprehensive understanding of the research
questions. The questions and range of response options are appropriate, in their view, for the purpose of the
assessment. The questionnaire actually measures what it is designed to measure.

2.2. Study participants

Teachers from public and private schools, parents of teenagers. The study sample was chosen via
convenience sampling, as the sample needed to be as big as possible to reflect the universe as good as
possible. Table 1 shows demographic information about participants.
The study consisted of two stages (Table 1). A total of 1,043 people took part in the study. There
were 922 school teachers from five economic regions of Kazakhstan participated in the survey, where 78.3%
of teachers were from Eastern Kazakhstan, 13.7% from Southern Kazakhstan, 4.6% from Northern
Kazakhstan, 2.2% from Western Kazakhstan, and 1.2% came from Central Kazakhstan. Questionnaires were
created using Google Forms as a research tool, and the responses were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and
SPSS 26.0 package for Spearman's correlation analysis. Selection of the sample was convenient sampling.
Since the object of study is factors influencing the creative thinking of adolescents, links to the questionnaire
were sent to parents of teenagers and teachers in secondary schools. These links were sent via e-mail
platforms, and through the WhatsApp application, which are accessible to respondents. The larger the
number of people involved in the survey, the smaller the margin of error in the confidence level. If more than
1,000 people are surveyed, the margin of sampling error is calculated to be about 3%. If more than 1,000
people participate in the survey, the margin of sampling error will be about 3%. A sample size of n=1,000
gives the same level of precision for all population sizes larger than n=10,000. This means that if one were to
obtain survey results reflecting the opinions of, for example, 6 million residents, then a sample size of
n=1,000 would be quite adequate [47]–[52].

Table 1. Proportion of research participants and research tools

Age (%) Work experience (%)
Participants Number (N) Share (%) Research tool
20-35 34-45 Over 45 1–5 years 5–10 years Over 10 years
Parents 121 11.6 - - - - - - Survey
Teachers 922 88.4 24.8 43.1 32.1 28.5 20.1 51.4

2.3. Data collection and analysis

The online survey is one of the popular, suitable research tools for researchers and respondents in
collecting data for academic research [53]. All respondents who participated in the online survey completed
100% of the questions. The first page of the questionnaire was the informed consent page, where respondents
were informed that their responses would be used for research purposes and would be sent to scientific
journals for possible publication in the future. If the respondent agrees to this proposal, he continues to
answer the questions.
Stage 1, a link to the questionnaire for the parents of Kazakhstani teenagers was sent via WhatsApp
and email. The survey included two main sections: an appeal section and the main section. The appeal
section is dedicated to obtaining parental consent and honest answers to questions, while the main section is
focused on thematic issues. According to Entwisle and Astone [54], parents are an authoritative source of
information on students' SES. Therefore, the questionnaire for parents included the main components of
socioeconomic factors [28], [46], namely, SES, social status, and disadvantaged family situation. The survey
questions included open and closed [55], [56] (qualitative and quantitative) format questions. The
relationship between the creative thinking of teenagers and socio-economic factors has been presented in
percentage terms and analyzed in SPSS package 26.
Stage 2, about 922 teachers from secondary schools took part. Online questionnaires for school
teachers were sent through the WhatsApp application and an email link. The survey included three main
sections: an appeal section, a demographic block section, and the main section. The appeal section includes
informed consent and a request for teachers' responses to questionnaire questions. The demographic section

Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in teenagers: a study in the … (Aikun Kuspanova)
2158  ISSN: 2252-8822

determines age, place of residence, and work experience. The main section deals with thematic issues. The
survey format is based on the type of open or closed [55], [56] (qualitative and quantitative) questions.
Table 2 shows the research questions and types of responses.
The validity and reliability of the questionnaire used in this study were carefully addressed to ensure
accurate and consistent data collection. The online survey format allowed for ease of access and completion,
with all participants responding to every question, contributing to a high level of response reliability. The
structure of the questionnaire, which included a consent page followed by demographic and main thematic
sections, was designed to promote honest and informed participation. The use of both open and closed
questions enabled a comprehensive exploration of themes, providing both qualitative depth and quantitative
data that strengthened the instrument's construct validity.

Table 2. Research questions and types of responses

Quantity Questions
Participants Answers
(N) Type of questions: qualitative and quantitative
Parents, 1,043 Do you think the SES of schools (condition of school buildings, quality It affects, it doesn't
teachers of cafeteria services, availability of necessary equipment, and internet affect, don't know
speed) can affect the quality of education?
Do you think family SES can affect teenager academic performance? It affects, it doesn't
affect, don't know
Can daily quality nutrition (nutritional content, variety, sleep quality) It affects, it doesn't
influence the quality of teenagers' thinking skills and creative mood? affect, don't know
Is it possible that a teenager living in a loving, complete family has It affects, it doesn't
higher creative thinking abilities than a student raised in a single-parent affect, don't know
(motherless or fatherless) family?
Who is more sensitive to the social situation in the family? Female, male
Do you agree with the view that teenagers from families of high SES To answer openly
have higher creative thinking abilities and are always in a creative mood
compared to children from middle or low SES families?
Note: the questions were compiled by the authors

2.4. Ethical considerations

The research was conducted in connection with the research topic of the first author, who is a
doctoral student, and there is a resolution from the Ethics Committee of Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical
University dated 30.04.2024. All participants were informed about the study's purpose and provided their
consent to participate voluntarily. The confidentiality and anonymity of the participants were maintained
throughout the study, and the data collected was used solely for research purposes.

3. RESULTS
A teenager spends five days a week and up to 7-8 hours a day at school. They spend the rest of their
time with their families. Therefore, the parents' perspective also increased the importance of this study [54].
The questionnaire for parents of teenagers consisted of questions requiring open and closed answers and
expressing their suggestions and opinions. Parents and teachers were asked to rate the impact of
socioeconomic factors within schools on the creative thinking of teenagers. Table 3 presents the descriptive
statistics for these responses, showing the central tendency and variability among the responses.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the influence of socioeconomic factors on creative thinking
Group N Mean SD Min Max
Parents 121 3.85 0.53 2.0 4.0
Teachers 922 3.82 0.53 2.0 4.0

As shown in Table 3, both parents and teachers rated the influence of school-based socioeconomic
factors on creative thinking highly, with mean scores of 3.85 and 3.82, respectively. The standard deviations
indicate relatively low variability, suggesting a consensus among respondents that school resources are
crucial for fostering creativity in teenagers. The answers were: “it affects”; “it does not affect”; “I do not
know.” Of these, 87.2% agreed that socioeconomic factors in schools and families influence the creative
behavior of teenagers. According to the results, 90.1% of the teenagers’ parents said that socioeconomic
factors at school influence the level of creative thinking of students. Socio-economic, demographic, and
geographical differences continue to impact educational outcomes. The level of education is correlated with

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025: 2154-2166
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2159

the level of poverty in a region. There is a significant gap in the availability of equipment between rural and
urban schools. Some rural schools do not even have internet access [57]. Teenagers studying in such schools
may be functionally illiterate since they have little opportunity to apply their theoretical knowledge in school
in practice. In addition, 90.9% of parents believe that the social status of the family affects the academic
performance and creative skills of teenagers. In addition, 92.6% of the parents indicated that the quality of
their daily lifestyle as a teenager affects the quality of their thinking skills. A total of 26.4% of parents did not
agree with the opinion that the academic performance of teenagers raised in a single-parent family is lower
than that of teenagers living in a two-parent family, and in their opinion, female children are more sensitive
to low social status (65.1%).
The impact of family SES on creative thinking was another key area explored in this study. The
results include a correlation between socioeconomic factors and perceptions of creative thinking. Table 4
presents these results, as well as teachers' perceptions of family socioeconomic factors and academic
performance. The table shows that there is a moderate positive correlation (ρ=0.33, p<0.01) between parents’
perceptions of the importance of school resources and family SES. Similarly, teachers showed a moderate
correlation (ρ=0.35, p<0.01) between family SES and academic performance. This result suggests that
teachers who see socioeconomic factors as important for academic success also view them as vital for
creativity.

Table 4. Correlation between socioeconomic factors and perceptions of creative thinking

Variables Parents (N=121) Teachers (N=922)
School resources and family SES 0.33** -
Family SES and academic performance - 0.35**
Daily nutrition and creative thinking 0.09 0.22**
**Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) are reported. Higher absolute values indicate stronger
relationships between variables. (p<0.01)

To support this finding, an open-ended question: “Teenagers raised in families with a high social
status have a higher ability for creative thinking than children from families with average or low social
status and are always in a creative mood. Do you agree with this opinion?” was asked to the parents. About
41.3% of parents took the position that the creative mood of teenagers raised in families with high social
status is always high. Additionally, despite their high social status, due to insufficient attention from parents
to children, they may lack a creative mood; creative mood does not depend on social status; children from
families with average or low social status often have high creative thinking; so many strong creative writers
and thinkers come from socially 'vulnerable' groups of people; opinions prevailed that creative mood depends
on kindness and upbringing in the family.
Also, an open question for teachers: “Teenagers raised in families with a high social status have a
higher ability for creative thinking than children from families with average or low social status and are
always in a creative mood. Do you agree with this opinion?” was asked to support the findings. About
45.87% of teachers agree with this point of view, while the rest note that a child's creativity depends on their
potential, but it is also influenced by socio-economic factors, it depends on the child's abilities from birth,
parents directly affect the child's education and not their social status, the child's creative mood depends on
the kindness and support of their mother and father, a child's social status affects their isolation and the
environment they are exposed to, which in turn affects their creative thinking and mood, positive love for a
teenager affects their creative mood», and some teachers categorically disagree with the opinion that
creativity does not form in a balanced social situation, while others say it depends on a teenager's character,
and some believe that no matter how much a teenager has been given, they will never be satisfied.
Daily nutrition is related to SES. For this reason, respondents were also asked about the role of daily
quality nutrition in supporting creative thinking. The results are displayed in Table 5. The table shows the
correlation between daily nutrition and creative thinking among parents and teachers.
Table 5 indicates that the correlation between daily quality nutrition and creative thinking is
moderate for teachers (ρ=0.22, p<0.01). However, the correlation was found to be weak for parents (ρ=0.09).
This suggests that while teachers acknowledge the role of nutrition in supporting creativity, it may not be
perceived as a direct or strong influence. Family structure, as an indicator of SES, was deemed to be
important in the study. So that, the study examined whether the structure of the family (e.g., single-parent vs.
two-parent households) influences creative thinking. However, the correlation analysis revealed weaker
relationships, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 shows that both parents and teachers had weak correlations between family structure and
creative thinking, with correlations of 0.02 and 0.15, respectively. This suggests a less consistent belief in the
direct impact of family structure on creativity. Overall, the study found that socioeconomic factors, both
Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in teenagers: a study in the … (Aikun Kuspanova)
2160  ISSN: 2252-8822

within the school and family environments, are perceived as significant predictors of creative thinking in
teenagers. These findings underscore the need for educational policies that address socioeconomic disparities
to enhance creative development in students. The moderate correlations between socioeconomic factors and
creativity indicate that while these factors are important, they are part of a more complex set of influences on
creative development.
The data suggest that intellectual and private schools provide environments more conducive to
creative thinking due to access to better resources and modern technologies. These schools often employ
innovative teaching methods, such as project-based learning and the integration of digital tools, which have
been shown to foster creativity. Conversely, public schools, particularly those in underfunded areas, may lack
the resources needed to cultivate creativity to the same extent. This disparity in access to technological
resources and innovative teaching methods likely contributes to the observed differences in creative thinking
between students from different school types. As shown in Table 7, intellectual and private schools are
perceived to have slightly higher levels of creative thinking, although the differences are relatively small.
In conclusion, while public schools may struggle to match the creative environments provided by intellectual
and private schools, the overall differences in students' creative thinking levels are relatively modest, likely
influenced by a combination of socioeconomic and resource factors.

Table 5. Spearman correlation between daily quality nutrition and creative thinking
Group Daily nutrition and creative thinking
Parents 0.09
Teachers 0.22**
**Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) are reported. Higher absolute
values indicate stronger relationships between variables. (p<0.01)

Table 6. Spearman correlation between family structure and creative thinking

Group Family structure and creative thinking
Parents 0.02
Teachers 0.15

Table 7. Perceptions of creative thinking in public, private, and intellectual schools

School type Mean rating for creative thinking Standard deviation
Public schools 3.45 0.68
Private schools 3.67 0.52
Intellectual schools 3.75 0.48

4. DISCUSSION
The findings of this study underscore the significant role that socioeconomic factors within the
school environment play in shaping the creative thinking abilities of teenagers in Kazakhstan. The moderate
to strong correlations observed between the availability of school resources and the perceived levels of
creativity among students suggest that schools with better socioeconomic standings are better equipped to
foster an environment that nurtures creativity. This connection likely stems from the availability of diverse
learning materials, enhanced technological access, and extracurricular opportunities that are more prevalent
in well-funded schools. These resources provide students with the necessary tools and stimuli to explore
creative ideas and engage in problem-solving activities that go beyond the standard curriculum. Additionally,
the supportive atmosphere in such schools, where teachers are likely more trained and capable of integrating
creative activities into their teaching methods, further amplifies the impact of school-based socioeconomic
factors on students' creative development. Thus, the findings highlight the need for policy interventions
aimed at reducing disparities in school funding and resource allocation to ensure that all students, regardless
of the SES of their schools, have equal opportunities to develop their creative potential.
According to the results of the study, the creative thinking of teenagers is influenced by socio-
economic factors. Analyzing the responses of parents and teachers, 82.7% of the 1,043 respondents noted
that socio-economic factors at school and in the family influence the creative thinking of teenagers.
Socioeconomic factors influence children's health, cognition, and social-emotional well-being and continue
from birth to adulthood [58]. According to previous studies [6], [24], all children are naturally creative, and
adults are naturally creative during childhood. They believe that every child is born with creative potential.
This can be the upbringing environment and socioeconomic conditions that enhance and suppress creativity.
This is because the socio-economic status of a family is positively correlated with the creation of a supportive
home environment, which in turn influences creativity [21]. According to OECD analysis [31], teenagers

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025: 2154-2166
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2161

with good socioeconomic well-being perform better on the PISA than teenagers with poor family
socioeconomic conditions. For example, the PISA 2018 study of students from 79 countries revealed that
students with high academic performance scored 89 points higher than low-income students (the difference
was 87 points in PISA 2009). Since a high socioeconomic situation provides a healthy environment and
resources for the emergence of a person's creative potential [59]. As the socioeconomic level increases, so
does creativity [1]. Students with low SES show lower results in speech fluency, flexibility, originality [60].
The impact of family SES on the creative abilities of teenagers, as perceived by both parents and
teachers, reveals a nuanced understanding of how home environments influence cognitive and creative
development. The moderate correlations between family SES and creative thinking, particularly in the
context of academic performance, suggest that families with higher SES are better positioned to provide the
resources and experiences that enhance creative thinking. These families are likely able to offer their children
access to a variety of cultural, educational, and recreational activities that stimulate creativity, such as
exposure to arts, music, and diverse literature. Moreover, the stability associated with higher SES may reduce
stress and provide a more supportive home environment, where children feel safe to express themselves and
explore new ideas. Teachers' perceptions, as reflected in the correlation between family SES and academic
performance, further support the idea that students from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to excel not
only in standard academic assessments but also in tasks that require creative thinking. This finding points to
the critical role that family background plays in shaping students' overall intellectual environment, suggesting
that efforts to support families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds could have a significant impact on
reducing disparities in creative and academic outcomes. Most parents and school teachers (82.7%) who
participated in the study believe that there is a connection between the school and the SES of the family and
the creative thinking of teenagers. Many research scientists also agree with this point of view, as they believe
there is a strong correlation between socio-economic background and academic success, including creativity
[16], [23], [26], [28]–[30], [37], [42], [44], [61]–[64]. However, school and school resources and parental
involvement may mitigate this difference [30]. In addition, it is believed that there is no relationship between
creativity and the SES of learners [7], [34]. In low-status families with “protective” factors, such as a
permanent place of residence, less cramped living conditions, greater reciprocity, stimulation and training
from parents, the level of intellectual development of children remains normal compared with that of children
of the same class but with less optimal life conditions [65]. However, home literacy and reading habits are
not always associated with SES [66]. Excessive attention from parents [23] and a high socio-economic status,
as well as a life of wealth, can also have a negative impact on the psyche of teenagers [67].
Family economic capital is a key factor influencing creativity [36]. The family’s SES predetermines
the level of academic achievement of teenagers [68]. Individuals with higher SES are more likely to spend
more time with their children [24]; have better access to educational resources, services, or technology [29];
and are more likely to strive for higher levels of personal and social success [69]. Parents can create a
creative atmosphere for them in the process of communicating with children. Parents can encourage their
children to embrace novelty and diversity, overcome inconsistency, support creative effort and persistence,
and encourage imagination [70]. Families, in turn, take care of, protect, and educate their children. They
provide their children with the skills necessary for survival, adaptation, growth, and development. This is
directly related to meeting their physiological and safety needs. The family provides the child with love and
emotional support, which partially satisfies the need to belong. When these needs are adequately satisfied,
individuals have more opportunities for self-awareness, self-realization, and development [41].
According to Kazakhstani teachers and parents, there is a link between socio-economic factors at
school and in the family, and the creativity of teenagers. This point of view is widely discussed in the final
reports of PISA international studies [31]–[33]. A sufficient allocation of funds for basic and additional
education services, stable social status in the family, support for creativity and motivation from teachers will
have a positive effect on the psychological and emotional state of the student, and additional education
services will be available for them. Pupils whose physiological and social needs are satisfied reach the
psychological level of further development strives for self-esteem and development [41], [71]. Although all
children come into life with creative potential [6], [24], socioeconomic factors have been found to affect
children's health, cognitive skills, and social-emotional conditions [6], [23], [24], [26], [28]–[30], [65], [72].
The study's exploration of differences in creative thinking among students attending public, private,
and intellectual schools in Kazakhstan, although not the primary focus of the data analysis, suggests that the
type of school a student attends may have an influence on their creative development, albeit indirectly
through the socioeconomic resources available to the institution. The weak correlations found between family
structure and creative thinking, combined with the moderate correlations related to school-based resources,
imply that the environment provided by the school, including the socio-economic status of the attending
students, plays a more critical role than previously understood. Public schools, which often operate with
fewer resources, may struggle to provide the same level of creative stimulation as private or intellectual
schools, which typically have better funding and can offer a more enriched educational experience. However,
Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in teenagers: a study in the … (Aikun Kuspanova)
2162  ISSN: 2252-8822

the findings also suggest that while school type is important, it is the broader context of SES—both at home
and in school—that ultimately determines the level of creative thinking fostered in students. This highlights
the importance of addressing inequalities not just at the school level, but also in the broader socio-economic
landscape, to ensure that students across all types of schools have the opportunity to develop their creative
potential fully. Those working to improve children’s health and well-being should pay special attention to the
social status in schools [73]. Tisza et al. [74] reported that because of specially organized seminars, children
from low-income schools significantly outperformed children from high-income schools in task performance.
Outdoor recreation programs and media exposure enhance teenagers’ creative thinking and well-being [75].
According to Dong et al. [38], a positive teaching style contributes well to the development of children’s
creative abilities. Teachers should create an environment that supports the creativity of teenagers. The
creative environment includes the working experience of teenagers in the classroom, the physical
environment and the learning atmosphere [72], [76]. Students who receive support from teachers have higher
levels of creative thinking [25]. This issue also depends on the sense of moral support and warmth that a
teenager receives from their family. According to Zhao and Yang [23], students who experienced more help
and emotional warmth in the family from their father than from their mother have a relatively high creative
thinking ability. A similar approach is presented in the study of Yildiz and Yildiz [26], students with a father
have higher levels of creative thinking and education than do students without a father.
The findings revealed that students from private and intellectual schools demonstrated higher levels
of creative thinking compared to their peers in public schools. These results suggest that school environments
and the availability of resources play a significant role in fostering creativity, consistent with existing research.
Prior studies have highlighted the importance of enriched educational environments, particularly those
equipped with modern technological tools, project-based learning, and innovative teaching methods, in
promoting creativity [9], [32], [33], [73], [74]. For instance, Zhao and Yang [23] emphasized the critical role
of access to modern technologies in facilitating creative development, particularly in higher socioeconomic
contexts. Similarly, Liu et al. [36] found that students in well-resourced schools exhibited higher levels of
creativity due to access to advanced educational tools and teaching methods. The findings of this study align
with these observations, showing that students in private and intellectual schools—often better equipped with
resources—demonstrate greater creativity than their public-school counterparts. Conversely, public schools,
especially those in underfunded regions, face challenges in providing environments conducive to creativity.
Kemelbayeva and Kurmanov [77] highlighted significant disparities in access to creative educational
opportunities within Kazakhstan, particularly in public schools, where socioeconomic challenges limit the
provision of creative resources. This gap in resource availability is reflected in the lower creative thinking
levels observed among public school students. This concept is confirmed by Kupczyszyn et al. [78], who
noted that limited access to resources hinders the creative problem-solving abilities of students from a lower
socio-economic status. In addition, the OECD [35], [57] documented the significant disparities in educational
resources between rural and urban areas in Kazakhstan, which likely contribute to the observed differences in
creative thinking. The association between SES and creativity development is well-supported in the literature.
Several studies [23], [24] highlighted how SES influences access to cultural and educational resources that
nurture creativity. This study reinforces those findings, showing that socioeconomic disparities between public
and private schools significantly affect students’ creative potential.
The implications of these findings are improving access to resources and modernizing teaching
methods in public schools could help bridge the gap in creative thinking between students of different school
types. Policymakers in Kazakhstan should consider reforms that increase resource allocation to public schools,
especially in underfunded areas, to foster environments that support creativity and innovation. Such efforts
would provide all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, the opportunity to develop their creative
abilities. The implications of these findings are profound, suggesting that both school and family environments
need to be considered when developing policies aimed at fostering creativity among students. The moderate
correlations between socioeconomic factors and creative thinking underscore the importance of providing
equal access to educational resources, regardless of a student’s socio-economic background. Future research
should focus on longitudinal studies that explore how changes in SES over time influence creative
development, and whether interventions at the school or family level can mitigate the impact of lower SES.
Additionally, exploring the role of specific educational practices and their interaction with socioeconomic
factors could provide further insights into how best to support creative thinking in diverse educational settings.

5. CONCLUSION
The findings of this study highlight the significant influence of both school and family
socioeconomic factors on the creative thinking of teenagers in Kazakhstan. The research underscores that
creativity is not merely an innate ability but is significantly shaped by the environment in which a student is

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025: 2154-2166
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2163

educated and nurtured. Schools with better socioeconomic resources provide students with richer educational
experiences that foster creativity, while families with higher SES are better equipped to offer the supportive
home environments and diverse experiences that further enhance creative development. These insights point
to a critical need for educational policies that address the disparities in resource allocation across schools and
support for families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In particular, the moderate correlations
observed between SES and creative thinking suggest that while these factors are important, they are part of a
more complex set of influences that include both educational practices and broader societal conditions. The
results emphasize the importance of a holistic approach to education, where the goal is not only to provide
equal access to resources but also to cultivate environments—both in schools and at home—that encourage
creative exploration and intellectual growth.
Given these findings, future efforts should focus on reducing the socioeconomic disparities that exist
within the educational system and ensuring that all students, regardless of their background, have the
opportunity to develop their creative potential. This includes policy initiatives aimed at equalizing school
funding, expanding access to cultural and educational resources for all families, and providing professional
development for teachers to integrate creativity more effectively into their teaching practices. Moreover,
future research should continue to explore the dynamic interplay between socioeconomic factors and creative
thinking, particularly in diverse cultural contexts like Kazakhstan. Longitudinal studies that track the
development of creativity over time, as well as interventions designed to mitigate the impact of
socioeconomic disadvantages, could provide valuable insights into how best to support all students in
reaching their full creative potential.
In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on the influence of
socioeconomic factors on creativity, offering evidence from the Kazakh context that underscores the
importance of equitable access to educational resources. By addressing these socioeconomic factors,
educators and policymakers can work towards creating an educational landscape where every student has the
opportunity to thrive creatively, ultimately contributing to a more innovative and inclusive society.

FUNDING INFORMATION
Authors state no funding involved.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author
contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration.

Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu
Aikun Kuspanova ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Bakhadurkhan ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Abdimanapov
Kulyash Kaimuldinova ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Emin Atasoy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Armanay Savanchiyeva ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C : Conceptualization I : Investigation Vi : Visualization

M : Methodology R : Resources Su : Supervision
So : Software D : Data Curation P : Project administration
Va : Validation O : Writing - Original Draft Fu : Funding acquisition
Fo : Formal analysis E : Writing - Review & Editing

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Authors state no conflict of interest.

INFORMED CONSENT
We have obtained informed consent from all individuals included in this study.

DATA AVAILABILITY
Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [BA]
on request.
Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in teenagers: a study in the … (Aikun Kuspanova)
2164  ISSN: 2252-8822

REFERENCES
[1] M. Castillo-Vergara, N. B. Galleguillos, L. J. Cuello, A. Alvarez-Marin, and C. Acuña-Opazo, “Does socioeconomic status
influence student creativity?” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 29, pp. 142–152, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.07.005.
[2] S. Fischer and A. Barabasch, “Conceptualizations and implementation of creativity in higher vocational teacher education – a
qualitative study of lecturers,” Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 6, Jul. 2023,
doi: 10.1186/s40461-023-00144-y.
[3] J. Kumar and Rani, “A study of creative thinking abilities of senior secondary school students in relation to their intelligence,”
Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity and English Language, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 209–226, 2014.
[4] M. A. Runco, Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2014.
[5] S. Russ and I. Lebuda, “Can we help children develop creative potential through pretend play? Interview with Sandra Russ,”
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 146–150, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.2478/ctra-2022-0008.
[6] R. K. Sawyer, Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
[7] S. Rani, “A study of creativity among senior secondary school students in relation to their socio-economic status,” Scholarly
Research Journal for Humanity and English Language, vol. 4, no. 27, pp. 3151–315727, 2016.
[8] D. D. Preiss, D. Cosmelli, and J. C. Kaufman, Creativity and the wandering mind: spontaneous and controlled cognition. London:
Academic Press, 2020, doi: 10.1016/C2017-0-04080-6.
[9] OCED, PISA 2022 results (Volume II). Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023, doi: 10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[10] R. Dhingra and K. S. Chauhan, “Assessment of life-skills of adolescents in relation to selected variables,” International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 201–214, 2017.
[11] C. Cirillo, T. Palermo, and F. Viola, Non-contributory social protection for adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a
review of government programmes and impacts. Florence, Italy: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2021.
[12] J. Jansz, M. Slot, S. Tol, and R. Verstraeten, “Everyday creativity: consumption, participation, production, and communication by
teenagers in the Netherlands,” Journal of Children and Media, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 143–159, Apr. 2015,
doi: 10.1080/17482798.2015.1015433.
[13] R. Shakirzyanova and R. Zakirova, “The creativity development of teenagers in leisure time,” Humanities and Social Sciences
Reviews, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 76–80, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.18510/hssr.2019.7616.
[14] E. Menardo, G. Balboni, and R. Cubelli, “Environmental factors and teenagers’ personalities: the role of personal and familial
socio-cultural level,” Behavioural Brain Research, vol. 325, pp. 181–187, May 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.02.038.
[15] M. Wolska-Długosz, “Stimulating the development of creativity and passion in children and teenagers in family and school
environment–inhibitors and opportunities to overcome them,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 174,
pp. 2905–2911, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1027.
[16] K. De, “Effect of parents economic status on teenage school girls growth,” Epidemiology: Open Access, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 1000291,
2017, doi: 10.4172/2161-1165.1000291.
[17] E. Kennewell, R. G. Curtis, C. Maher, S. Luddy, and R. Virgara, “The relationships between school children’s wellbeing,
socio-economic disadvantage and after-school activities: a cross-sectional study,” BMC Pediatrics, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 297, Dec.
2022, doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03322-1.
[18] K. Trivedi and R. Bhargava, “Relation of creativity and educational achievement in adolescence,” Journal of Psychology, vol. 1,
no. 2, pp. 85–89, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1080/09764224.2010.11885449.
[19] L. Deng, L. Wang, and Y. Zhao, “How creativity was affected by environmental factors and individual characteristics: a cross-cultural
comparison perspective,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 357–366, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195615.
[20] M. S. Gulliksen, “Norwegian parents’ perspective on environmental factors that influence creativity – an empirical grounding for
future studies,” International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 88, pp. 85–94, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.013.
[21] D. M. Jankowska, I. Lebuda, and J. Gralewski, “Creating home: socioeconomic status and home environment as predictors of
family climate for creativity,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 52, p. 101511, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101511.
[22] OECD, PISA 2018 results (Volume II). Paris: OECD, 2019, doi: 10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
[23] X. Zhao and J. Yang, “Fostering creative thinking in the family: the importance of parenting styles,” Thinking Skills and
Creativity, vol. 41, p. 100920, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100920.
[24] Z. Parsasirat, A. Foroughi, F. Yusooff, N. Subhi, S. Nen, and H. Farhadi, “Effect of socioeconomic status on emersion adolescent
creativity,” Asian Social Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 105–112, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n4p105.
[25] H. Zhang, C. Sun, X. Liu, S. Gong, Q. Yu, and Z. Zhou, “Boys benefit more from teacher support: effects of perceived teacher
support on primary students’ creative thinking,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 37, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100680.
[26] C. Yildiz and T. G. Yildiz, “Exploring the relationship between creative thinking and scientific process skills of preschool
children,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 39, p. 100795, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100795.
[27] L. Shi, S. Chen, and Y. Zhou, “The influence of social capital on primary school teachers’ creative teaching behavior: mediating
effects of knowledge sharing and creative teaching self-efficacy,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 47, p. 101226, Mar. 2023,
doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101226.
[28] S. R. Sirin, “Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research,” Review of Educational
Research, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 417–453, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.3102/00346543075003417.
[29] S. F. Reardon, “The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor,” in Inequality in the 21st Century,
1st ed., D. Grusky and J. Hill, Eds., New York: Routledge, 2018, pp. 177–189, doi: 10.4324/9780429499821-33.
[30] J. Munir, M. Faiza, B. Jamal, S. Daud, and K. Iqbal, “The impact of socio-economic status on academic achievement,” Journal of
Social Sciences Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 695–705, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.54183/jssr.v3i2.308.
[31] OECD, Equity in education. Paris: OECD, 2018, doi: 10.1787/9789264073234-en.
[32] OECD, Education at a Glance 2020. Paris: OECD, 2020, doi: 10.1787/69096873-en.
[33] OCED, PISA 2022 results (Volume I). Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023, doi: 10.1787/53f23881-en.
[34] J. Mehta and J. Khajuria, “Creative thinking of middle school students in relation to their socio economic status and intelligence,”
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 862–871, 2018.
[35] A. Pons, J. Amoroso, J. Herczyński, I. Kheyfets, M. Lockheed, and P. Santiago, OECD reviews of school resources: Kazakhstan
2015. Paris: OECD, 2015, doi: 10.1787/9789264245891-en.
[36] J. Liu et al., “Factors influencing the creativity of Chinese upper-secondary-school students participating in programming
education,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, p. 732605, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732605.
[37] N. Kumar and H. L. Sharma, “Classroom morale of adolescent students in relation to their creativity and socio-economic-status,”
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 156–159, 2016.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025: 2154-2166
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2165

[38] Y. Dong, J. Lin, H. Li, L. Cheng, W. Niu, and Z. Tong, “How parenting styles affect children’s creativity: through the lens of
self,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 45, p. 101045, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101045.
[39] M. Topçiu and J. Myftiu, “Vygotsky theory on social interaction and its influence on the development of pre-school children,”
European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 172, 2015, doi: 10.26417/ejser.v4i1.p172-179.
[40] S. Kiran, “Creativity and culture: a comparative study on creativity theories of Lev Vygotsky and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,”
Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 847–852, 2019, doi: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00139.6.
[41] R. J. Taormina and J. H. Gao, “Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: measuring satisfaction of the needs,” The American Journal
of Psychology, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 155–177, Jul. 2013, doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155.
[42] Q. Liang, W. Niu, L. Cheng, and K. Qin, “Creativity outside school: the influence of family background, perceived parenting, and
after‐school activity on creativity,” The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 138–157, 2022, doi: 10.1002/jocb.521.
[43] P. Beniwal and C. K. Singh, “Role of socio-economic status in enhancing adolescents’ creative thinking,” International Journal
of Humanities and Social Sciences (IJHSS), vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2017.
[44] S. Antonoplis, “Studying socioeconomic status: conceptual problems and an alternative path forward,” Perspectives on
Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 275–292, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1177/17456916221093615.
[45] M. E. Ensminger and K. E. Fothergill, “A decade of measuring SES: what it tells us and where to go from here,” in
Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development, London: Taylor and Francis, 2014, pp. 13–27.
[46] T. W. Chan, “The social status scale: its construction and properties,” in Social Status and Cultural Consumption, T. W. Chan,
Ed., Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 28–56, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712036.002.
[47] R. Hill, “What sample size is ‘enough’ in internet survey research?” Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic
Journal for the 21st Century, vol. 6, pp. 3–4, 1998.
[48] V. Sue and L. Ritter, Conducting online surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2007.
[49] D. A. Story and A. R. Tait, “Survey research,” Anesthesiology, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 192–202, Feb. 2019,
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002436.
[50] S. C. Chuah, F. Drasgow, and R. Luecht, “How big is big enough? Sample size requirements for CAST item parameter
estimation,” Applied Measurement in Education, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 241–255, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1903_5.
[51] J. E. Bartlett, J. W. K. J. W. Kotrlik, and C. Higgins, “Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey
research appropriate sample size in survey research,” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, vol. 19, no. 1,
p. 43, 2001.
[52] X. Li, J. Liu, W. Gao, and G. L. Cohen, “Challenging the N-Heuristic: effect size, not sample size, predicts the replicability of
psychological science,” PLOS ONE, vol. 19, no. 8, p. e0306911, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306911.
[53] P. R. Regmi, E. Waithaka, A. Paudyal, P. Simkhada, and E. Van Teijlingen, “Guide to the design and application of online
questionnaire surveys,” Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 640–644, May 2017, doi: 10.3126/nje.v6i4.17258.
[54] D. R. Entwisle and N. M. Astone, “Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status,”
Child Development, vol. 65, no. 6, p. 1521, Dec. 1994, doi: 10.2307/1131278.
[55] L. Colosi, “Designing an effective questionnaire,” Cornell Cooperative Extension, pp. 1–6, 2006, [Online]. Available:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.6136&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[56] I. Brace, Questionnaire design: how to plan, structure, and write survey material for effective market research, 2nd ed. London:
Kogan Page Publishers, 2008, doi: 10.5860/choice.51-0965.
[57] OECD, OECD skills strategy Kazakhstan: assessment and recommendations. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021.
[58] R. H. Bradley and R. F. Corwyn, “Socioeconomic status and child development,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 53, no. 1,
pp. 371–399, Feb. 2002, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233.
[59] N. Sinha, “Effect of parenting style, parents attitude and socio-economic status on creativity,” Indian Journal of Health and
Well-being, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 226–228, 2021.
[60] A. P. Singh, “Creativity in children: the role of child abuse, socio-economic status and age,” International Journal of Indian
Psychology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 171–182, 2016, doi: 10.25215/0304.172.
[61] O. A. Uriah, N. P. Ololube, and D. E. Egbezor, “Academic background, socio-economic status and gender: implications for youth
restiveness and educational development in Rivers State,” International Journal of Applied Sociology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 16–30,
2015, doi: 10.5923/j.ijas.20150501.03.
[62] A. P. Saxena and R. P. Saini, “Comparative study of educational interest, self-realization and creativity of students on the basis of
socio-economic level,” Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 216–223, 2023.
[63] Y.-C. Lin, “Do socially competent children have high levels of creativity? Investigating the relationship between social
competence and creativity in Taiwanese children,” International Journal of Education & Management, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 171, 2019.
[64] M. Kola-Bezka, “Creativity as a factor for socio-economic development of polish regions,” Equilibrium, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 71–84,
Mar. 2011, doi: 10.12775/EQUIL2011.004.
[65] R. H. Bradley, L. Whiteside, D. J. Mundfrom, P. H. Casey, K. J. Kelleher, and S. K. Pope, “Early indications of resilience and
their relation to experiences in the home environments of low birthweight, premature children living in poverty,” Child
Development, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 346–360, Apr. 1994, doi: 10.2307/1131388.
[66] D. Qiuchi and X. Yuxin, “The relationship between home literacy environment and teenagers’ reading habits,” in Proceedings of
the 2021 2nd International Conference on Mental Health and Humanities Education (ICMHHE 2021), pp. 158–163, 2021,
doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.210617.055.
[67] A. Talkowski, “Exploring the relationship between high-ses and anxiety/depression in adolescents: development of a method,”
M.S. thesis, Lesley University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019.
[68] W. Yuan et al., “Family socioeconomic status and Chinese adolescents’ academic achievement in the arts: the mediating role of
family arts resources and the moderating role of family arts atmosphere,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, p .751135, Oct. 2021,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751135.
[69] S. B. Gustafson and D. Magnusson, Female life careers: a pattern approach. London: Routledge, 2022.
[70] J. M. Kwaśniewska, J. Gralewski, E. M. Witkowska, M. Kostrzewska, and I. Lebuda, “Mothers’ personality traits and the climate
for creativity they build with their children,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 27, pp. 13–24, Mar. 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.002.
[71] C. Jamadar and A. Sindhu, “The impact of socio economic status on emotional intelligence and creativity among tribal adolescent
students,” International Journal of Indian Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 112–125, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.25215/0301.014.
[72] C. Richardson and P. Mishra, “Learning environments that support student creativity: developing the scale,” Thinking Skills and
Creativity, vol. 27, pp. 45–54, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004.
[73] H. Sweeting and K. Hunt, “Adolescent socio-economic and school-based social status, health and well-being,” Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 121, pp. 39–47, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.037.
Socioeconomic factors as predictors of creative thinking in teenagers: a study in the … (Aikun Kuspanova)
2166  ISSN: 2252-8822

[74] G. Tisza, P. Markopoulos, and H. King, “Socioeconomic background influences children’s attitudes and learning in creative
programming workshop,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 6, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11467-w.
[75] H. M. McAnally, L. A. Robertson, and R. J. Hancox, “Effects of an outdoor education programme on creative thinking and well-
being in adolescent boys,” New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 53, no. 2, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s40841-018-0111-x.
[76] J. Guo et al., “The roles of social–emotional skills in students’ academic and life success: a multi-informant and multicohort
perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 124, no. 5, pp. 1079–1110, May 2022, doi: 10.31234/osf.io/ahg8p.
[77] S. Kemelbayeva and B. Kurmanov, “Elite schools and educational inequality: evidence from a private university in Kazakhstan,”
International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 127, p. 102413, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102413.
[78] K. H. Kupczyszyn, V. A. Filippetti, and L. Oros, “Socioeconomic status effects on children’s creativity: the mediating role of
executive functions,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 51, p. 101437, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101437.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Aikun Kuspanova is a senior lecturer and a doctoral student at the Department of

Geography and Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Geography. She has been working as
a university lecturer since 2008. In 2021, she enrolled in the doctoral program with the
educational program 8D01515 - Geography. Her research interests are: creative thinking of
adolescent students and factors influencing their creative thinking. She can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Bakhadurkhan Abdimanapov is a doctor of geographical sciences, professor.

He is engaged in research into methods of teaching geography and natural sciences. The author
of more than 100 scientific papers, including 15 textbooks, teaching aids, and monographs.
Winner of the title “Best University Teacher” - 2014. He has more than 15 professional
development certificates. His research interests include methods of geography and natural
science teaching. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Kulyash Kaimuldinova is a doctor of geographical sciences, professor with 30

years of work experience. Winner of the “Best University Teacher” grant (2011). Author of
more than 200 scientific, educational, and methodological works, including textbooks for
universities, secondary school grades 7, 8, 10, and 11, and geographical atlases approved by
the Ministry of Education and Science of Kazakhstan. She participated in the creation of the
3-volume National Atlas of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Her research interests include general
issues in physical geography and methods of teaching geography. She can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Emin Atasoy is a Ph.D. doctor, professor at Bursa Uludag University. In 2005, he

defended his doctoral thesis at the Institute of Social Sciences of Uludag. He has participated
in over 20 international conferences and has made scientific presentations during his scientific
career. He has published more than 15 books, book chapters, and articles in journals indexed
by SSCI. His research interests include demographic and geopolitical issues, country, and
population geography, as well as geographical and environmental education and political
geography. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Armanay Savanchiyeva is a master of international tourism, senior lecturer at the

Department of Geography and Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Geography, has a
total work experience of 22 years. Since 2011, she has been a corresponding member of the
International Public Organization “Academy of Youth Tourism and Local Lore”, named after
A. A. Ostapets-Sveshnikov (Moscow), a tour guide of the 3rd category, honorary associate
professor at I. Arabaev Kyrgyz State University, Bishkek, and has 50 certificates for advanced
training. Research interests include methods of teaching geography, landscape studies, and
tourism. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2025: 2154-2166