Learning model and academic ability each significantly affect creative thinking, but their interaction does not¶

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? Learning model (F=115.503) and academic ability (F=16.648) significantly affected creative thinking; the model × ability interaction was not significant (F=0.825, p=0.440). → 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

Two-way ANCOVA on creative thinking scores printed in Table 2: Model F=115.503, Academic Ability F=16.648, both Sig. 0.000; Model * Academic Ability F=0.825, Sig. 0.440. No effect size is printed, so impact is coded i? (no magnitude reported; not a null effect).

"Table 2 shows that the learning model and academic ability have an effect on students’ creative thinking (p sig. 0.05)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Creativity — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• SSCS alone also reversed the ability gap: low academic students improved 17.66% more than high academic students — related
• The interaction between learning model and academic ability significantly affects pre-service teachers' critical thinking skills — related
• Parents' job type does not significantly affect students' creative thinking — related
• Gender does not significantly affect students' creative thinking in problem solving — related
• SSCS+MS learning improves low academic students' creative thinking ability 36.18% more than high academic students — related
• Under SSCS+MS, low academic students' creative thinking improvement exceeded high academic students' (descriptive corrected means) — related