Brainstorming instruction raised 10th-grade students' total creative-thinking posttest scores in English relative to conventional teaching¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The experimental group taught with brainstorming scored significantly higher than the control group on the total posttest of creative thinking (significant at 0.01). → Al Masri 2019

Evidence¶

Al Masri 2019¶

Al Masri, A. (2019). The Impact of Using Brainstorming in the Development of Creative Thinking and Achievement in the English Language of the 10th Grade Students at King Abdullah II Schools of Excellence in Amman. International Education Studies, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n2p82

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Semi-experimental two-group comparison of 168 tenth-grade students (84 experimental taught with brainstorming, 84 control taught the usual way). Independent-samples T test on the posttest gave T = 4.990, Sig = 0.000, with means 96.595 versus 65.855; the article reports "statistically significant differences between the experimental group and the control group".

"Table 2 shows that the value of calculated “T” is greater than the value of tabulated “T” in all the dimensions and the overall score of the post-test is statistical at the level of significance (α≤0.05, α≤0.01)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Creativity — outcome: instruction changes it

Brainstorming instruction raised English-language achievement-test scores relative to conventional teaching — related
Brainstorming instruction improved each creative-thinking skill — fluency, flexibility and originality — on the posttest — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Control group showed no significant total creativity gain, improving significantly only on fluency — related
Experimental-group students showed higher creative thinking than the traditionally taught control group at the .01 level of significance — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-01`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.