Claims

Under SSCS+MS, low academic students' creative thinking improvement exceeded high academic students' (descriptive corrected means)

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

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? Corrected creative thinking improvement was 239.38% for SSCS+MS low academic students versus 152.77% for high academic students. → 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 comparison of corrected mean improvements in Table 4 (SSCS+MS low academic 239.38%, high academic 152.77%) with LSD notations d and e; these are untested descriptive percentages, not effect sizes.

"While related to the SSCS + MS learning model it is seen that the creative thinking ability of the high and low academic ability students is different (d and e); the improvement of the creative thinking ability of the low academic ability students is 36.18% higher than that of the high academic ability students."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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