Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Convergent thinking is a term coined by Joy Paul Guilford as the opposite of divergent thinking. It generally means the ability to give the "correct" answer to questions that do not require novel ideas, for instance on standardized multiple-choice tests for intelligence.
[3] [4] Display questions bear similarities to closed questions in terms of their requirement for short and limited answers and they can be classified under convergent questions. On the other hand, referential questions and open questions are similar in their requirement for long, often varied, answers, and can be grouped under divergent questions.
Convergent thinking is the opposite of divergent thinking as it organizes and structures ideas and information, which follows a particular set of logical steps to arrive at one solution, which in some cases is a "correct" solution. The psychologist J. P. Guilford first coined the terms convergent thinking and divergent thinking in 1956.
These types of questions often require students to analyze, synthesize, or evaluate a knowledge base and then project or predict different outcomes. A simple example of a divergent question is: Write down as many different uses as you can think of for the following objects: (1) a brick, (2) a blanket.
Here is a list of examples in which unrelated proteins have similar functions with different structure. The convergent orientation of the catalytic triad in the active site of serine and cysteine proteases independently in over 20 enzyme superfamilies. [254] The use of an N-terminal threonine for proteolysis.
Authorities in New York City are searching for a man who allegedly impersonated a federal immigration enforcement agent before trying to rape a 51-year-old woman in broad daylight, according to ...
For example, the extent to which a test measures intelligence is a question of construct validity. A measure of intelligence presumes, among other things, that the measure is associated with things it should be associated with (convergent validity), not associated with things it should not be associated with (discriminant validity). [7]
For example, Georgia and Ohio State also each self-reported four minor violations in their football programs during various periods in 2023-24. ... a relevant question for any journalist to ask ...