Gifted primary students report higher need for cognition, perceived competence and perceived autonomy than nongifted students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Gifted students reported higher NFC (η²p = .29), higher posttest perceived competence (η²p = .05) and higher posttest perceived autonomy (η²p = .05) than nongifted students. → Coppens 2019

Evidence¶

Coppens 2019¶

Coppens, L. C., Hoogerheide, V., Snippe, E. M., Flunger, B., & van Gog, T. (2019). Effects of problem–example and example–problem pairs on gifted and nongifted primary school students' learning. Instructional Science, 47, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09484-3

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Pre-experiment NFC questionnaire comparison in the 2×2 design: gifted students "reported a higher NFC" than nongifted students, F(1, 122) = 48.87, p < .001, η²p = .29. Posttest competence and autonomy main effects of giftedness were also significant (p = .011 and p = .018).

"gifted students reported a higher NFC (M = 4.12, SD = 0.65) than nongifted students (M = 3.35, SD = 0.60), F(1, 122) = 48.87, p <.001"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• General Cognitive Ability — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Perceived competence predicts isomorphic test performance and perceived autonomy predicts transfer performance — related
• Example–problem pairs raise perceived competence but not perceived autonomy or enjoyment — related
• Example–problem pairs are more efficient than problem–example pairs for both gifted and nongifted primary school students — related
• Starting with an example strongly benefits first practice problem performance, with a larger effect for gifted students — related