International Research Journal of Teacher Education

IRJTE
Vol. 3(1), pp. 036-043, March, 2017. www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2326-7124 x

Research Article

The relationship between creativity and logical

thinking: A case of Iranian ESP teachers
Yasin Khoshhal1*, Fateme Hosseini2
1*
Department of English Language and Literature, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
2
English Language Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.

The relationship between creativity and logical thinking, particularly critical thinking, has been a
matter of debate so far. The present study tries to observe whether a significant relationship
exists between the two concepts. To this end, the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
was administered to 23 Iranian ESP teachers in order to have an understanding of their level of
creativity. Then, a test which is aimed at making participants use their critical thinking ability
was given to the teachers. This test was selected from the PhD entrance exam in Iran, typically
known as the Logical Tests of GMAT. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used in order to
identify whether a significant relationship exists between the two variables. Findings indicated
that although there has been a direct relationship between creativity and critical thinking, it is
not significant to a high degree. In this case, teachers who have been measured to be more
creative could achieve a better score in GM AT test. With regard to the current results, the
methods which tend to help the teachers to act more creatively are recommended to the ESP
teachers in order to help them perform more critically in the desired situations.

Keywords: ESP, critical thinking, logical thinking, analyzing, reasoning, creativity, creative thinking, GMAT test

INTRODUCTION

A large number of studies have been done around the
different factors influencing learners educational
development. Among these factors, much attention is
devoted to the cognitive styles and/or metacognitive
strategies, which vary among various learners. Critical
thinking, as a cognitive style, and creative thinking, as a
metacognitive strategy, are regarded as those features
that can have a great impact on the learners educational
development. Whereas, according to Lai (2011),
creativity is needed to generate new ideas to solve
problems, and critical thinking evaluates and improves an
idea. A list of cognitive skills and dispositions including
analysis, explanation, self-regulation, evaluation,
inference, interpretation, and purposeful reflective
judgment is suggested by Facione (2011, P. 5) to define
critical thinking. In the same vein, Torrance (1966, P. 6)
defined creativity in an operationally problem-oriented
definition as:
Learners critical thinking and creativity
a process of becoming sensitive to a problem,
deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements,
disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty,
searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating
hypotheses about these deficiencies, testing and
retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and
retesting them; and finally communicating the results.
(cited in Baker M., Rudd R., and Pomeroy C., 2001, P. 3).
*Corresponding author: Yasin Khoshhal Department of
English Language and Literature, University of Guilan,
Rasht, Iran. Email: yasin_kd@msc.guilan.ac.ir,
jasin.kd@gmail.com, Tel.: +989117447114
2
Co-author Email: h.saji.6870@gmail.com
Khoshhal and Hosseini 037
Regarding the relation between creative and critical
thinking, there are some conflicts: Beyer (1989, P. 35)
stated that although creative and critical thinking may
very well be different sides of the same coin, they are not
incidental. (cited in Baker et al., 2001). On the other
hand, there are some other researchers who are against
Beyer (1989), including Treffinger (2006) who had a fair
statement as neither divergent (creative) nor convergent
(critical) thinking in itself is sufficient for promoting
effective thinking and problem solving: Both sets of skills
must apparently be used in harmony. (Cited in Chen
Tsai, 2012).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Critical Thinking
Theoretical background.
The literature on critical thinking has a long
history. Roots of critical thinking go back to the ancient
Greek. Greek philosopher Socrates, 2,500 years ago,
began this approach, discovering his probing
questioning method. Socrates underlined the importance
of evidence, reasoning, and analyzing basic concepts for
whatever said and done. Socrates logic emphasized the
rational argument. Socrates practice was followed by
other philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, and the
Greek skeptics. Along similar road, Aristotle developed
the rules of reasoning for thinking critically for everything
to draw inferences.
In spite of the fact that Socrates began this approach
over 2,000 years ago, John Dewey, the American
philosopher, psychologist, and educator is widely
regarded as the father of the critical thinking tradition
(Fisher, 2001, P. 2). Dewey (1933) as cited in Fisher
(2001) described critical thinking from a philosophical
perspective.
Critical thinking as a specific area of study goes back at
least to 1941 with Edward Glasers notion as an
experimental in the development of critical thinking
(Klimoviene, Urboniene, and Barzdziukiene, 2006, P. 78).
He is coauthor of the worlds most widely used test of
critical thinking, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal (WGCTA). The development of thinking was
strongly influenced by Benjamin Bloom in 1948. About
fifty years later, in France, Descartes started to apply
critical thinking. Descartes argued that every part of
thinking should be questioned, doubted, and tested. At
the same time, Sir Thomas More developed a model of a
new social order, called Utopia, in which every domain
of present world was subject to critique.
In the Italian Renaissance, Machiavellis The Prince
th
assessed the politics of his day by analyzing. In the 16
th
and 17 centuries Hobbes and Locke done as
Learners critical thinking and creativity
Machiavelli. Hobbes believed in explaining everything by
evidence and reasoning, by adopting a naturalistic view.
th
Robert Boyle (in the 17 century) and Isaac Newton (in
th th
the 17 and 18 century) did their work during the
intellectual freedom and critical thought.
Facione (1994) designed the California Critical Thinking
Test (CCTT) as a general test of critical thinking. There
are six cognitive skills of critical thinking asfollows, as
cited in Facione, (1994):
1- Interpretation: categorization, decoding
significance, clarifying meaning
2- Analysis: examining ideas, identifying arguments,
analyzing arguments
3- Evaluation: assessing claims, assessing
arguments
4- Inference: querying evidence, conjecturing
alternatives, drawing conclusions
5- Explanation: stating results, justifying procedures,
presenting arguments
6- Self-regulation: self-examination, self-correction.
The critical thinking defined by Watson and Glaser (2000)
suggested it as a blend of knowledge, attitude, and
performance of each individual, including abilities such as
comprehension skills, identifying hypothesis, inference,
analysis, and evaluating rational arguments. Halpern
(2003, as cited in Ghanizadeh, and Moafian, 2011)
defined critical thinking as the kind of thinking that is
purposeful, reasoned, and goal-oriented and the kind of
thinking involved in solving problems, formulating
inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions
(P. 6). In his view, critical thinking comprises following
skills: verbal-reasoning skills, argument-analysis skills,
thinking skills such as hypothesis testing, decision-
making, and problem solving skills. (Ghanizadeh, and
Moafian, 2011, P. 27). A critical thinker in the eyes of
Paul and Elder (2005) is someone who tries to solve
complicated problems in different ways by asking
questions, gathering relevant information, determining
findings, and communicating them practically. (as cited in
Lai, 2011).
Similarly, Beyer (1989) defined creative thinking
as a divergent process, trying to create something new,
and which carried on by violating accepted principles.
Torrance (1990) characterized creative thinking by four
components: FLUENCY-generating many ideas-,
FLEXIBILITY -shifting perspective easily-, ORIGINALITY
-conceiving of something new-, and ELABORATION -
building on other ideas-. One key difference between
creative and critical thinking, according to Smith (1990, p.
101), is that the generation of alternatives is a creative
activity, and the selection among them must be critical.
In 1980, Willings identified three different kinds of
Creative Thinking as followed:
1. Adaptive thinking: the ability to relate what is
observed to something to which it is not obviously

2. relatable; making links between apparently
unconnected areas
3. Elaborative thinking: researching, refining and
often beautifying the ideas of some other thinker
4. Developmental thinking: enables the individual to
enlarge his concept of himself and the world around him
ascited in Davis (2004)
In this regard, Gardner related his theory of
multiple intelligences (1983) to different types of creativity
and believed that (Gardner, 1999b) there is a connection
between intellectual strength and mode of creativity. For
example, those with an affinity for interpersonal
intelligence are more likely to become influencers or
performers. Those with strong logical-mathematical
intelligence are more likely to become theory builders.
(cited in Davis, 2004)
Empirical studies in Iran
Sheikhi (2009), as cited in Boloori, and Naghipoor, (2013)
conducted a research study which revealed autonomy is
significantly related to critical thinking. The learners
critical thinking correlated with their reading
comprehension. The findings also revealed a strong
relationship between autonomy and reading
comprehension. Mirzai (2008) investigated the
relationship between critical thinking and lexical inference
of Iranian ESP learners. He concluded high critical
thinking students outperformed the low critical thinking
ones in lexical inference as cited in Boloori, and
Naghipoor (2013).
Khorasani and Farimani (2010) tried to investigate the
effect of teacher-dependent character of educational
agenda on being critical or noncritical thinking students.
In another study, Fahim and Azarnioushi (2011) tried to
apply rule-driven or discovery learning approaches to
teach grammar in order to check the relationship between
language learners performance and their critical thinking.
(As cited in Golpour, 2014).
Creativity
Theoretical Studies.
In literature there are different terminologies associated
with creative thinking such as divergent thinking (Dirkes,
1978; Torrance, 1977), psychic wholeness and
integration (Hickson and Housley, 1997), the synthesis of
knowledge, emotion, and experience (Sinnott, 1998), the
formation of new neurons (Schmidt, 2006), open-
mindedness (Fasko, 2006), the intentional production of
novelty (Weisberg, 2006), the problem-solving ability
(Ruscio and Amabile, 1999), a natural human process
motivated by strong needs (Torrance, 1972), personal
constructions and the requisite cognitive processes
Learners critical thinking and creativity
Int. Res. J. Teacher Educ. 038
(Runco, 2003), and assimilation and imagination (Piaget,
1962). (as cited in Tsai, 2013)
Empirical studies.
In order to measure certain cognitive abilities- correlated
with creative thought processes, there are some creativity
tests which are easily administered along with objective
data analyzing, that the majority of experimental studies
related to creativity are based on these tests; the
Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) by Paul
Torrance, the Remote Associates Test (RAT) by Sarnoff
Mednick and the Guilfords Structure of the Intellect (SOI)
divergent production tests by Joy Paul Guilford are of
mostly-used creativity tests. as cited in Dippo (2013).
A considerable number of studies were done on
creativity. Among these studies are some investigations
about the relationship between creativity and academic
achievement of students, as one aspect of creativity.
(Toth and Baker, 1990; Powers and Kaufman, 2004;
ChamorroPremuzic, 2006; Onda, 1994; Runco, 2007;
Kaboodi and Jiar, 2012, as cited in Bolandifara, and
Noordin, 2013). Another aspect that obtain more attention
is the relation of creativity to gender, in order to do so,
Mehrafza (2004) examined gender differences and
creativity through using Abedis questionnaire of creativity
and reported that no differences were found in the overall
creativity scores of students (as cited in Bolandifara, and
Noordin, 2013).
Anna Craft (2001), as cited inBaker, Rudd, and Pomeroy,
2001) stated that Woods (1990, 1993, 1995) done a
qualitative research in primary school classrooms, and by
which he identified RELEVANCE, OWNERSHIP,
CONTROL, and INNOVATION, as four features that
foster creativity for both teachers and students. Isaacs
(1987) examined the importance of learning style and its
impact on creativity.
A considerable number of studies were done on
creativity. Among these studies are some investigations
about the relationship between creativity and academic
achievement of students, as one the aspects of creativity
(Chamorro Premuzic, 2006; Kaboodi and Jiar, 2012;
Onda, 1994; Powers and Kaufman, 2004; Runco, 2007;
Toth and Baker, 1990). Another aspect that has gained
more attention is the relationship between creativity and
gender, in order to do so, Mehrafza (2004) examined
gender differences and creativity through using Abedis
questionnaire of creativity and reported that no
differences were found in the overall creativity scores of
students (cited in Bolandifara, and Noordin, 2013).
In this paper, the relationship between ESP learners
critical thinking and their creativity was examined to
check whether they are related or not. Hence the
following question was formulated:
Does a learner with a higher level of critical thinking have
a higher ability in creativity?
Khoshhal and Hosseini 039
METHOD
Participants
Twenty-three male and female ESP teachers, whose
ages ranged from nineteen to twenty-nine participated in
this study. Sixty percent of the participants were female
and the rest were male language teachers.
3.1. Instruments
In this study, the relationship between creative and
critical thinking was sought. To this end, two main
instruments were implemented. The participants
completed GMAT test consisting of fifteen questions,
designed for the PhD entrance examination in Iran, and
was logically-based, and a questionnaire of Torrance
Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), the figural and verbal
forms containing five activities. Torrance (1966, 1974)
described four components by which individual creativity
could be assessed as cited in Craft (2001):
1. FLUENCY: the ability to produce a large number
of ideas
2. FLEXIBILITY: the ability to produce a large
variety of ideas
3. ELABORATION: the ability to develop, embellish,
or fill out an idea
4. ORIGINALITY: the ability to produce ideas that
are unusual, statistically infrequent, not banal or obvious.
3.2. Procedure
According to the conditions of the test, learners were
tested during a time-managed environment, in which they
were given three minutes for each activity of Torrance
Test of Creative Thinking. Learners answered activities
right after listening carefully to the directions. Time to
answer the GMAT test was fifteen minutes, just the same
as in the main entrance exam.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of the GMAT test are shown in Table 1 for each
student. Each cell illustrates the option being chosen by
the participants and the colored cells show the right
items. Scores are out of fifteen and the scaled scores are
indicated in the last column. Taking a deeper look into the
scores, it is simply clear that questions 3 and 6have been
more difficult than the rest of the questions while
numbers 2 and 14 have not put the participants in much
trouble.
While students S19 and S15 achieved the lowest scores
(2 out of 15), three students (S6, S11, and S21) could get
the highest score, 8, which was quite disappointing.
The other test which was carried out in order to have a
scale of participants level of creativity was the Torrance
Tests of Creative ThinkingFigural test. In order to score
the test, the researchers went through a norm referenced
Learners critical thinking and creativity
assessment approach to rank each student with respect
to the achievement of others in the three veins of fluency,
originality and resistance to premature closure because
each skill is usually tested by less than four items, items
vary in difficulty and items are selected that discriminate
between high and low achievers (Bond, 1996).
These scores according to Torrance and Ball (1984) and
Torrance (1990) are identified as follows:
Fluency: The number of relevant ideas;
Originality: The number of statistically infrequent
ideas; shows an ability to produce uncommon or unique
responses. The scoring procedure counts the most
common responses as 0 and all other legitimate
responses as 1. The originality lists have been prepared
for each item on the basis of normative data, which are
readily memorized by scorers.
Resistance to Premature Closure: The degree of
psychological openness; based on the belief that creative
behavior requires a person to consider a variety of
information when processing information and to keep an
open mind.
With regard to the scoring procedure, each individual is
compared with other participants and assigned a score
with five as the highest score (being meeting the
requirements of the test to the highest level) and one as
the lowest score (not being able to meet requirements of
the test to a considerable level).
F stands for fluency, O stands for originality and R stands
for resistance to premature closure. Based on the
average scaled scores illustrated in Table 2. S1 achieved
an average score of 73.2 out of 100 for the core of
fluency (shown by F in the table), 80 for originality of his
answers in the three activities (1, 4 and 5) and 46.6 is
given to the Resistance to Premature Closure of his
answers.
In this regard the best score for the resistance to
premature closure was achieved by S18, and the highest
ranks of fluency and originality were given to the S8 and
the S5.
In order to analyze the scores, we need each students
average score. To this end, the average score (mean) for
each student was calculated, using the formulae below:
(& & )
=
3
According to Drnyei (2011), in order to examine the
relationship between two variables, we should perform
correlation analysis since it allows us to look at two
variables and evaluate the strength and direction of their
relationship or association with each other.
According to what has already been clarified, the two
variables in the present study are the mean score of the
 Int. Res. J. Teacher Educ. 040

Table 1. Average scaled scores in three activities (1,4 and 5)

F O C Mean
S1 73.2 80 46.6 66.6
S2 73.2 80.33 73.2 75.57
S3 80 60 80 73.33
S4 80.33 66.6 80 75.64
S5 60 80.66 80.33 73.66
S6 53.2 46.6 46.6 48.8
S7 53.2 40 40 44.4
S8 80.66 80.33 80.33 80.44
S9 40 53.2 53.2 48.8
S10 66.6 60 53.2 59.93
S11 46.6 46.6 33.2 42.13
S12 53.2 66.6 66.6 62.13
S13 46.6 46.6 53.2 42.13
S14 53.2 60 33.2 48.8
S15 26.6 46.6 46.6 39.93
S16 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2
S17 53.2 66.6 33.2 51
S18 53.2 66.6 100 73.26
S19 33.2 40 33.2 35.46
S20 80.33 73.2 80 77.84
S21 33.2 46.6 46.6 42.13
S22 46.6 60 46.6 51.06
S23 53.2 46.6 46.6 48.8

Table 2 Correlation between GMAT and TTCT Scores

Mean of TTCT (x) GMAT (y) xy
S1 66.6 46.67 3108.222 4435.56 2178.089
S2 75.57 46.67 3526.852 5710.825 2178.089
S3 73.33 26.67 1955.711 5377.289 711.2889
S4 75.64 20 1512.8 5721.41 400
S5 73.66 40 2946.4 5425.796 1600
S6 48.8 53.33 2602.504 2381.44 2844.089
S7 44.4 33.33 1479.852 1971.36 1110.889
S8 80.44 26.67 2145.335 6470.594 711.2889
S9 48.8 20 976 2381.44 400
S10 59.93 26.67 1598.333 3591.605 711.2889
S11 42.13 53.33 2246.793 1774.937 2844.089
S12 62.13 46.67 2899.607 3860.137 2178.089
S13 42.13 40 1685.2 1774.937 1600
S14 48.8 33.33 1626.504 2381.44 1110.889
S15 39.93 13.33 532.2669 1594.405 177.6889
S16 33.2 33.33 1106.556 1102.24 1110.889
S17 51 26.67 1360.17 2601 711.2889
S18 73.26 40 2930.4 5367.028 1600
S19 35.46 13.33 472.6818 1257.412 177.6889
S20 77.84 46.67 3632.793 6059.066 2178.089
S21 42.13 53.33 2246.793 1774.937 2844.089
S22 51.06 46.67 2382.97 2607.124 2178.089
S23 48.8 40 1952 2381.44 1600
1295.04 826.67 46926.74 78003.42 33155.91

Torrance Tests of Creative ThinkingFigural test and the 1079315.02 1070570.7168 8744.3032
score of the GMAT test. = =
116950.0584 79202.6411 96243.19977
= 0.09085

=
2 2 2 2 = 0.09085

Learners critical thinking and creativity

Khoshhal and Hosseini 041

60

G 50
M
A
40
T

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Mean of TTCT

Figure 1. The correlation between GMAT and TTCT scores

60

50

40
G
M 30
A
T
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mean of TTCT

Figure 2. The correlation between GMAT and TTCT scores

The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, can take a range of the value of one variable increases, so does the value of
values from +1 to -1. A value of 0 indicates that there is the other variable. A value less than 0 indicates a
no association between the two variables. A value negative association; that is, as the value of one variable
greater than 0 indicates a positive association; that is, as increases, the value of the other variable decreases.

Learners critical thinking and creativity


According to Mackey and Gass (2005), the correlation
coefficient (which ranges from +1 to -1) gives information
about the extent to which there is a linear relationship
between the variables.
Based on the calculations above, = 0.09085, which
means that there is a very small positive association
between the two variables. Figure 1 illustrates how two
variables correlated when the r ranged from 0.7 to +
0.7. In this case there was no correlation between the
variables when r=0.
With regard to finding of this study, association between
the score of TTCT and the result from the GMAT test, the
Figure 1 indicates that there is a very small correlation
between the two variables (r = 0.09085). However, some
small positive associations can be observed in the figure
2. (Shown by the arrow)
Accordingly, there is a small association between some
parts of the scores of the two GMAT and TCTT tests,
although considering all the scores this correlation is
almost zero. In this case for some cases, GMAT score
and the result of TTCT have been in direct relationship
(as one increases it leads to the growth in the other). In
this sense, for some students, it is believed that who
could get a higher score in GMAT should have done a
great job in TTCT figural test as well and a low score in
the first leads to a weak point in the other test.
CONCLUSION
As defined before, creativity is the production of
unpredictable novelty and practical ideas based on it
(Amabile, 1996; Runco and Albert, 2010; Sternberg and
Lubart, 1999) and critical thinking has been known as the
objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to
form a judgment. The findings of the present study
suggest that there exists a very small positive relationship
between the two unities of creativity and critical thinking.
According to Ulibarri, et al. (2014)creative problem
solving methods can be adopted by doctoral students in
that they make use of them in their studies, hence the
effect of utilizing a critical approach can lead us
automatically to a creative individual. As the calculations
indicated there has not been a considerable relationship
between critical thinking and creativity. It can be implied
that however not all participants utilize a creative mind to
solve their critically designed activities, GMAT test in this
study, for some of them as illustrated in the previous
section this effect of creativity can be observed. For the
ESP teachers, they had better work on the methods and
activities which help them have a better understanding of
the novel ideas in a case whether educational or other to
be able to encounter the issues in the ESP contexts.
Learners critical thinking and creativity
Int. Res. J. Teacher Educ. 042
REFERENCES
Amabile, TM (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the
Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Baker M, Rudd R, Pomeroy C (2001). Relationships
between critical thinking and creative thinking.
Bolandifara S, Noordin N (2013). Investigating the
Relationship between Creativity and Academic
Achievement of Malaysian Undergraduates, Jurnal
Teknologi (Social Sciences), 65(2), 101107.
Boloori L, Naghipoor M (2013). The relationship between
critical thinking and performance of Iranian ESP
learners on translation tests, International Researchers,
2(2).
Davis D (2004). Creative Teachers for Creative Learners
a Literature Review, Creativity and Innovation, Bath
Spa University College
Dippo C (2013). Evaluating The Alternative Uses Test of
Creativity, Proceedings of the National Conference On
Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2013, University of
Wisconsin La Crosse, WI
Drnyei Z (2011). Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics. Oxford University Press
Facione NC, Facione AP (1994). The "California Critical
Thinking Skills Test" and the National League for
Nursing Accreditation Requirement in Critical Thinking,
California Academic Press
Facione AP (2011). Critical Thinking: What Is It and Why
It Counts, Millbrae, CA: Measured reasons and the
California academic press
Fisher A (2001). Critical thinking: an introduction, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Ghanizadeh A, Moafian F (2001) Critical thinking and
emotional intelligence: investigating the relationship
among ESP learners and the contribution of age and
gender,Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL),
14(1), 23-48.
Golpour F (2014). Critical thinking and ESP learners
performance on different writing modes, Pan-Pacific
Association of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 103-119
Klimoviene G, Urboniene J, Barzdziukiene R (2006).
Developing critical thinking through cooperative
learning, Studies about Languages, 9.
Lai RE (2011). Critical thinking: a literature review, The
United Kingdom: Pearson
Mackey A, Gass SM (2005). Second Language
Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: London.
Runco MA, Albert RS (2010). Creativity research: a
historical view. In: J.C. Kaufman and R.J. Sternberg
(eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1999) The concept of creativity:
Prospects and Paradigms. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.)
Handbook of Creativity, pp. 3-16. London: Cambridge
Khoshhal and Hosseini 043

University Press.
Tsai CK (2012). Play, Imagination, and Creativity: A Brief
Literature Review, Journal of Education and Learning,
1(2), Canadian Center of Science and Education.
Ulibarri N, Cravens AE, Cornelius M, Royalty A, Nabergoj
AS (2014). Research as design: Developing creative
confidence in doctoral students through design
thinking. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9:
249-270.
Watson GB, Glaser EM (2012). Watson-Glaser critical
thinking Appraisal user guide and technical manual,
The United Kingdom: Pearson.

Accepted 28 February, 2017.

Citation: Khoshhal Y, Hosseini F (2017). The relationship

between creativity and logical thinking: A case of Iranian
ESP teachers. International Research Journal of Teacher
Education, 3(1): 036-043.

Copyright: 2017 Khoshhal and Hosseini. This is an

open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
cited.

Learners critical thinking and creativity