SSCS alone also reversed the ability gap: low academic students improved 17.66% more than high academic students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Under SSCS without metacognitive strategy, low academic students' creative thinking improvement was 17.66% higher than high academic students' (LSD notations c and cd, not different). → Yusnaeni 2017

Evidence¶

Yusnaeni 2017¶

Yusnaeni, Corebima, A. D., Susilo, H. & Zubaidah, S. (2017). Creative Thinking of Low Academic Student Undergoing Search Solve Create and Share Learning Integrated with Metacognitive Strategy. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 245-262. http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2017_2_16.pdf

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive corrected-mean comparison from Table 4 for the SSCS condition (low academic 176.05%, high academic 144.96% improvement); the LSD notation showed no significant difference between ability groups.

"Related to the SSCS learning model, though the LSD notation between the high academic ability and low academic ability students is not different (c and cd), the increase of the creative thinking ability of the low academic ability students is 17,66% higher than that of the high academic ability students."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• General Cognitive Ability — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Under SSCS+MS, low academic students' creative thinking improvement exceeded high academic students' (descriptive corrected means) — related
• SSCS+MS learning improves low academic students' creative thinking ability 36.18% more than high academic students — related
• Under traditional learning, high academic students' creative thinking improvement exceeded low academic students' — related
• Learning model and academic ability each significantly affect creative thinking, but their interaction does not — related