Evaluation of the Effects of Grouping High Capacity Students in Academic Achievement and Creativity
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Reliability
3.2. Effect of Clustering on Academic Achievement
3.3. Creativity and Academic Achievement
3.4. Effects in Narrative Creativity of the Ability Grouping
3.5. Effects in Graphic Creativity of the Ability Grouping
3.6. Correlations among Grades and Creativity
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Reis, S.; Sullivan, E. Characteristics of gifted learners. Consistently varied; refreshingly diverse. In Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted; Karnes, F.A., Bean, S.M., Eds.; Prufrock Press Inc.: Waco, TX, USA, 2009; pp. 3–35. [Google Scholar]
- Cross, T.L.; Coleman, L.J. School-based conception of giftedness. In Conceptions of Giftedness; Sternberg, R., Davidson, J.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 52–63. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-León, M.I. Bases psicobiológicas de la creatividad en los niños con altas capacidades. Psiq. Biol. 2020, 27, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renzulli, J.S. The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In Conceptions of Giftedness; Sternberg, R., Davidson, J.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1986; pp. 53–93. [Google Scholar]
- Reis, S.M. Reflections on policy affecting the education of gifted and talented students: Past and future perspectives. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manning, S. Recognizing gifted students: A practical guide for teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2006, 42, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basten, U.; Hilger, K.; Fiebach, C.J. Where smart brains are different: A quantitative meta-analysis of functional and structural brain imaging studies on intelligence. Intelligence 2015, 51, 10–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rimm, S.B. Underachievement: A National Epidemic. In Handbook of Gifted Education; Colangelo, N., Davis, G.A., Eds.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 424–443. [Google Scholar]
- Borges, A.; Hernández-Jorge, C. La superdotación intelectual: Algo más que un privilegio. Acta Cient. Y Tecnol. 2006, 10, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
- Baum, S.M.; Renzulli, J.S.; Hébert, T.P. Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gift Child. Q. 1995, 39, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morisano, D.; Shore, B.M. Can personal goal setting tap the potential of the gifted underachiever? Roeper Rev. 2010, 32, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodley, L.E.; Stanley, J.C. Youth who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally. In Conceptions of Giftednes; Sternberg, R., Davidson, J.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 20–37. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrandíz, C.; Ruíz-Melero, M.; Bermejo, R. Programas de enriquecimiento para el desarrollo del talento y la excelencia. In Educacao de Superdotados e Talentosos. Emocao E Criatividade; Ribeiro, F.H., Stoltz, T., Costa-Lobo, C., Rocha, A., Vásquez-Justo, E., Eds.; (Organizadores) Juruá Editora: Curitiba, Brazil, 2018; pp. 167–187. [Google Scholar]
- Golle, J.; Zettler, I.; Rose, N.; Trautwein, U.; Hasselhorn, M.; Nagengast, B. Effectiveness of a “Grass Roots” statewide enrichment program for gifted elementary school children. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2018, 11, 375–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoogeveen, L. Social Emotional Consequences of Accelerating Gifted Students. Ph.D. Thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Southern, W.T.; Jones, E.D. Typesofacceleration: Dimensions and issues. In A Nationdeceived: Howschoolshold Back America’s Brightest Students; Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., Gross, M.U.M., Eds.; National Association for Gifted Children: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 5–12. [Google Scholar]
- Assouline, S.G.; Colangelo, N.; Vantassel-Baska, J. A Nationempowered; Belin-Blank Center: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2015; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Colangelo, N.; Aussoline, S.; Gross, M. A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students; Gifted Education Research, Resource and Information Centre (GERRIC): Sydney, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Neihart, M. The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gift Child. Q. 2007, 51, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, C.C.; Gan, L. Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gentry, M. Commentary on “Does sorting students improve scores?” An analysis of class. J. Adv. Acad. 2016, 27, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adelson, J.L.; Carpenter, B.D. Grouping for achievement gains: For whom does achievement grouping increase kindergarten reading growth? Gift Child. Q. 2011, 55, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentry, M. Total School Cluster Grouping: A Comprehensive, Research-Based Plan Forraising Student Achievement and Improving Teacher Practices, 2nd ed.; Prufrock: Waco, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Feldhusen, J.F.; Moon, S.M. Grouping of gifted students: Problems and concerns. Gift Child. Q. 1994, 36, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slavin, R.E. Achievement effect sof ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1990, 60, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subotnik, R.F.; Almarode, J.; Lee, G.M. STEM schools as incubators of talent development. Gift Child. Today 2016, 39, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulik, J.A. An analysis of the research on ability grouping. NRC/GT Newsl. 1993, 8, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Steenbergen-Hu, S.; Makel, M.C.; Olszewski-Kubilius, P. What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 849–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, H.W. The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 1987, 79, 280–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, M.; Neumann, M.; Tetzner, J.; Böse, S.; Knoppick, H.; Maaz, K. Is early ability grouping good for high-achieving students’ psychosocial development? Effects of the transition into academically selective schools. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 106, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Y.D.; Rinn, A.N. The big-fish-little-pond effect: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2008, 20, 283–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preckel, F.; Brull, M. The benefit of being a big fish in a big pond: Contrastand assimilation effects on academic self-concept. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2010, 20, 522–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borland, J.H. Evaluating gifted programs: A broader perspective. In Handbook of Gifted Education; Colangelo, N., Davis, G.A., Eds.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 293–310. [Google Scholar]
- Hattie, J.C. Classroom composition and peer effects. Int. J. Int. Educ. J. 2002, 8, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betancourt, J.; Borges, A.; Rodríguez-Naveiras, E. Desempeño Académico de Los Alumnos Que Cursan 6 to Año de Primaria en el Centro Educativo Para Altas Capacidades; Congreso Nacional de Psicología: Vitoria, España, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Preckel, F.; Stumpf, E.; Motschenbacher, M.; Vogl, K.; Scherrer, V.; Schneider, W. High-ability grouping: Benefits for gifted students’ achievement development without costs in academic self-concept. Child. Dev. 2019, 80, 1185–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allan, A.S.D. Ability-Grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educ. Lead. 1991, 48, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
- Dole, S.F.; Bloom, L.A.; Doss, K.K. Rocket to creativity: A field experience in project-based and problem-based learning. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2016, 3, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horak, A.K.; Galluzzo, G.R. Gifted middle school students’ achievement and perceptions of science classroom quality during problem-based learning. J. Adv. Acad. 2016, 28, 28–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stepien, W.J.; Gallagher, S.A.; Workman, D. Problem-based learning for traditional and interdisciplinary classrooms. J. Educ. Gift 1993, 16, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langbeheim, E. A project-based course on Newton’s laws for talented junior high-school students. Phys. Educ. 2015, 50, 410–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mioduser, D.; Betzer, N. The contribution of Project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2007, 18, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Plucker, J. Increasing student creativity: Recent advances and future directions. In Proceedings of the Creativity Research & Innovation In Gifted Education: Social, Individual and Educational Perspective, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 12 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
- López-Martínez, O.; Navarro-Lozano, J. Creatividad e inteligencia: Un estudio en Educación Primaria. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2010, 28, 283–296. [Google Scholar]
- Renzulli, J.S. The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented; Creative Learning Press: Wethersfield, CT, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, D.Y. The Nature and Nurture of Giftedness: A New Framework for Understanding Gifted Education; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gralewski, J.; Karwowski, M. Creativity and school grades: A case from Poland. Think. Skills Creat. 2012, 7, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, B. A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Appl. Mes. Educ. 2016, 29, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kettler, T.; Lamb, K.E.; Willerson, A.; Mullet, D.R. Teachers’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creat. Res. J. 2018, 30, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, E.; Kysh, J.; Ramage, K.; Resek, D. Helping teachers un-structure: A promising approach. Mont. Math. Enthus. 2009, 16, 423–434. [Google Scholar]
- Melievna, M.D. Methodology for the formation of creative competence of future teachers in the process of teaching mathematics based on a special complex of tasks. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020, 24, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajda, A.; Karwowski, M.; Beghetto, R.A. Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 109, 269–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artola, T.; Ancillo, I.; Mosteiro, P.; Barraca, J. Prueba de Imaginación Creativa Para Niños—PICN; TEA Ediciones S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Artola, T.; Barraca, J.; Martín, A.; Mosteiro, P.; Ancillo, I.; Poveda, B. Prueba de Imaginación Creativa Para Jóvenes—PICJ; TEA Ediciones S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Matthews, M.S.; Ritchotte, J.A.; McBeec, M.T. Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Abil. Stud. 2013, 24, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subotnik, R.F.; Rickoff, R. Should eminence based on outstanding innovation be the goal of gifted education and talent development? Implications for policy and research. Learn Individ. Differ. 2010, 20, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subotnik, R.F.; Olszewski-Kubilius, P.; Worrell, F.C. A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gift Child. Q. 2012, 56, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, J. Giftedness in the long term. J. Educ. Gift 2006, 29, 384–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulik, J.A.; Kulik, C.C. Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gift Child. Q. 1992, 36, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges, A.; Sánchez-Bruno, A. La simulación al servicio de los contrastes estadísticos: Resumen de métodos y estado de la cuestión en grupos pequeños e independientes. Psicothema 2002, 4, 255–271. [Google Scholar]
- Cañadas-Osinski, I.; Borges, A.; Sánchez-Bruno, A.; San Luis, C. Estudio de la potencia de los contrates de medias con dos y tres grupos con tamaño de efecto pequeño y en condiciones de no normalidad y homo-heterocedasticidad. Psicothema 2000, 12, 114–116. [Google Scholar]
Years of Stay | Gender | ||
---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | Total | |
Primary School | |||
2 | 12 | 10 | 22 |
High School | |||
1 | 5 | 6 | 11 |
2 | 8 | 24 | 32 |
3 | 4 | 18 | 22 |
Total | 29 | 58 | 87 |
Variables | Years of Stay | Initial Average | Current Average | N | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
Grade point average | Year 1 | 9.75 | 0.175 | 9.68 | 0.227 | 11 |
Year 2 | 9.43 | 0.474 | 9.51 | 0.382 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 9.13 | 0.527 | 9.40 | 0.466 | 22 | |
Language | Year 1 | 9.773 | 0.3259 | 10.345 | 2.6216 | 11 |
Year 2 | 9.050 | 0.8474 | 9.337 | 0.6095 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 8.673 | 0.9280 | 9.227 | 0.7516 | 22 | |
Mathematics | Year 1 | 9.782 | 0.3816 | 9.573 | 0.6544 | 11 |
Year 2 | 9.437 | 0.5564 | 9.489 | 0.5797 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 9.105 | 0.6579 | 9.386 | 0.7549 | 22 |
Years of Stay | Statistic | df | p | Statistic | df | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grade Point Average Pre-Test | Grade Point Average Post-Test | |||||
1 | 0.915 | 11 | 0.283 | 0.944 | 11 | 0.567 |
2 | 0.179 | 54 | 0.000 | 0.144 | 54 | 0.007 |
3 | 0.955 | 22 | 0.399 | 0.917 | 22 | 0.065 |
Spanish pre | Spanish post | |||||
1 | 0.664 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.557 | 11 | 0.000 |
2 | 0.164 | 54 | 0.001 | 0.179 | 54 | 0.000 |
3 | 0.955 | 22 | 0.398 | 0.796 | 22 | 0.000 |
Mathematics pre | Mathematics post | |||||
1 | 0.620 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.726 | 11 | 0.001 |
2 | 0.156 | 54 | 0.002 | 0.189 | 54 | 0.000 |
3 | 0.929 | 22 | 0.115 | 0.754 | 22 | 0.000 |
Grade | Time | Levene’s Test | df1 | df2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grade point average | Pre-test | 5.331 | 2 | 84 | 0.007 |
Post-test | 2.322 | 2 | 84 | 0.104 | |
Spanish | Pre-test | 4.664 | 2 | 84 | 0.012 |
Post-test | 5.359 | 2 | 84 | 0.006 | |
Mathematics | Pre-test | 1373 | 2 | 84 | 0.259 |
Post-test | 2.760 | 2 | 84 | 0.069 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grade point average | |||||||
Pre–post | 0.276 | 1 | 0.276 | 6.717 | 0.011 | 0.74 | 0.726 |
Interaction | 0.476 | 2 | 0.238 | 5.791 | 0.004 | 0.121 | 0.858 |
Error | 3.452 | 84 | 0.326 | ||||
Years of stay | 3.106 | 2 | 1.553 | 4.767 | 0.011 | 0.102 | 0.780 |
Error | 27.369 | 84 | 0.326 | ||||
Spanish | |||||||
Pre–post | 6.457 | 1 | 6.457 | 10.244 | 0.002 | 0.109 | 0.726 |
Interaction | 0.476 | 2 | 0.238 | 0.609 | 0.546 | 0.014 | 0.858 |
Error | 3.452 | 84 | 0.041 | ||||
Years of stay | 3.106 | 2 | 1.553 | 7.511 | 0.001 | 0.152 | 0.936 |
Error | 27.369 | 84 | 0.326 | ||||
Mathematics | |||||||
Pre–post | 0.050 | 1 | 0.050 | 0.273 | 0.603 | 0.003 | 0.081 |
Interaction | 0.929 | 2 | 0.464 | 2.530 | 0.086 | 0.057 | 0.494 |
Error | 15.418 | 84 | 0.184 | ||||
Years of stay | 2.957 | 2 | 1.478 | 2.723 | 0.071 | 0.061 | 0.525 |
Error | 45.595 | 84 | 0.543 |
Brown–Forsythe | df1 | df2 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Grade point average (pre) | 9376 | 2 | 45.210 | 0.001 |
Spanish (pre) | 8.801 | 2 | 46.290 | 0.001 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 year of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 0.022 | 1 | 0.022 | 0.918 | 0.361 | 0.084 | 0.140 |
Error | 0.243 | 10 | 0.024 | ||||
2 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 0.188 | 1 | 0.188 | 4.502 | 0.039 | 0.078 | 0.549 |
Error | 2.207 | 53 | 0.042 | ||||
3 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 0.818 | 1 | 0.818 | 17.151 | 0.001 | 0.450 | 0.976 |
Error | 9.382 | 21 | 0.447 |
Years of Stay at CEPAC | Mean Difference (I-J) | Error Dev. | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Grade point average | ||||
Tukey’s HDS | 1–2 | 0.24 | 0.134 | 0.171 |
1–3 | 0.45 | 0.149 | 0.009 | |
2–3 | 0.21 | 0.102 | 0.110 | |
Spanish | ||||
Tukey’s HDS | 1–2 | 0.866 | 0.2609 | 0.004 |
1–3 | 1.109 | 0.2913 | 0.001 | |
2–3 | 0.244 | 0.1995 | 0.444 |
Variables | Years of Stay | Pre-Test | Post-Test | N | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | TD | M | TD | |||
Fluency | Year 1 | 53.55 | 20.921 | 66.18 | 20.483 | 11 |
Year 2 | 43.93 | 19.732 | 67.46 | 30.115 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 56.82 | 25.926 | 79.64 | 28.098 | 22 | |
Flexibility | Year 1 | 26.00 | 7.50 | 30.18 | 6.49.3 | 11 |
Year 2 | 22.89 | 7.610 | 28.69 | 0.097 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 24.77 | 7.715 | 35.55 | 9.059 | 22 | |
Narrative originality | Year 1 | 29.73 | 22.970 | 34.64 | 15.667 | 11 |
Year 2 | 22.61 | 14.786 | 40.13 | 20.791 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 32.00 | 19.635 | 45.77 | 22.878 | 22 |
Years of Stay | Statistic | df | p | Statistic | df | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fluency Pre | Fluency Post | |||||
1 | 0.969 | 11 | 0.876 | 0.969 | 11 | 0.879 |
2 | 0.141 | 54 | 0.009 | 0.115 | 54 | 0.072 |
3 | 0.949 | 22 | 0.298 | 0.925 | 22 | 0.095 |
Flexibility pre | Flexibility post | |||||
1 | 0.938 | 11 | 0.502 | 0.966 | 11 | 0.839 |
2 | 0.121 | 54 | 0.049 | 0.069 | 54 | 0.200 |
3 | 0.962 | 22 | 0.525 | 0.915 | 22 | 0.059 |
Narrative originality pre | Narrative originality post | |||||
1 | 0.891 | 11 | 0.144 | 0.971 | 11 | 0.893 |
2 | 0.117 | 54 | 0.061 | 0.149 | 54 | 0.004 |
3 | 0.955 | 22 | 0.392 | 0.928 | 22 | 0.112 |
Narrative Creativity | Time | Levene’s Test | df1 | df2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fluency | Pre | 1.755 | 2 | 84 | 0.179 |
Post | 1.722 | 2 | 84 | 0.185 | |
flexibility | Pre | 0.080 | 2 | 84 | 0.923 |
Post | 1.359 | 2 | 84 | 0.263 | |
narrative originality | Pre | 1.606 | 2 | 84 | 0.207 |
Post | 1.127 | 2 | 84 | 0.329 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fluency | |||||||
Pre–post | 11,234.370 | 1 | 11,234.370 | 26.421 | 0.000 | 0.239 | 0.999 |
Interaction | 553.355 | 2 | 276.677 | 0.651 | 0.524 | 0.015 | 0.156 |
Error | 35,717.622 | 84 | 425.210 | ||||
Years of stay | 4916.190 | 2 | 2458.095 | 2.858 | 0.063 | 0.064 | 0.546 |
Error | 72,252.235 | 84 | 860.146 | ||||
Flexibility | |||||||
Pre–post | 1390.081 | 1 | 139.081 | 10.244 | 0.002 | 0.109 | 10.000 |
Interaction | 238.399 | 2 | 119.200 | 0.609 | 0.546 | 0.014 | 0.518 |
Error | 3740.130 | 84 | 44.525 | ||||
Years of stay | 618.309 | 2 | 309.554 | 7.511 | 0.001 | 0.152 | 0.619 |
Error | 7741.806 | 84 | 92.164 | ||||
Narrative originality | |||||||
Pre–post | 117496.301 | 1 | 117496.301 | 133.612 | 0.000 | 0.614 | 10.000 |
Interaction | 4714.734 | 2 | 2357.367 | 2.681 | 0.074 | 0.060 | 0.518 |
Error | 73,868.485 | 84 | 879.387 | ||||
Years of stay | 7160.512 | 2 | 3580.256 | 2.451 | 0.092 | 0.055 | 0.480 |
Error | 13,532.864 | 84 | 161.106 |
Years of Stay at CEPAC | Mean Difference (I-J) | Error Dev. | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tukey’s HDS | 1–21–3 | 2.30 | 2.246 | 0.563 |
−2.07 | 2.507 | 0.689 | ||
2–3 | −4.37 | 1.717 | 0.034 |
Variables | Years of Stay | Pretest | Posttest | N | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Graphic originality | Year 1 | 6.45 | 2.115 | 5.45 | 2.841 | 11 |
Year 2 | 6.22 | 3.106 | 6.56 | 2.361 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 8.27 | 2.374 | 5.86 | 1.885 | 22 | |
Elaboration | Year 1 | 3.09 | 1.758 | 4.73 | 2.005 | 11 |
Year 2 | 3.17 | 1.881 | 2.89 | 2.186 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 2.36 | 1.706 | 3.23 | 2.487 | 22 | |
Title | Year 1 | 4.27 | 2.611 | 3.36 | 2.203 | 11 |
Year 2 | 2.35 | 1.684 | 2.57 | 2.194 | 54 | |
Year 3 | 3.59 | 1.869 | 3.00 | 2.370 | 22 | |
Special details | Year 1 | 1.73 | 2.611 | 0.18 | 0.405 | 11 |
Year 2 | 0.57 | 1.126 | 0.17 | 0.466 | 44 | |
Year 3 | 0.64 | 1.733 | 1.09 | 1.770 | 22 |
Years of Stay | Statistic | df | p | Statistic | df | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Graphic Originality Pre | Graphic Originality Post | |||||
1 | 0.891 | 11 | 0.144 | 0.971 | 11 | 0.893 |
2 | 0.117 | 54 | 0.061 | 0.149 | 54 | 0.004 |
3 | 0.955 | 22 | 0.392 | 0.928 | 22 | 0.112 |
Elaboration pre | Elaboration post | |||||
1 | 0.915 | 11 | 0.276 | 0.966 | 11 | 0.839 |
2 | 0.140 | 54 | 0.010 | 0.909 | 22 | 0.046 |
3 | 0.909 | 22 | 0.046 | 0.902 | 22 | 0.033 |
Title pre | Title post | |||||
1 | 0.962 | 11 | 0.797 | 0.900 | 11 | 0.184 |
2 | 0.206 | 54 | 0.000 | 0.128 | 54 | 0.027 |
3 | 0.897 | 22 | 0.026 | 0.870 | 22 | 0.008 |
Special details pre | Special details post | |||||
1 | 0.725 | 11 | 0.001 | 0.486 | 11 | 0.000 |
2 | 0.399 | 54 | 0.000 | 0.510 | 54 | 0.000 |
3 | 0.412 | 22 | 0.000 | 0.673 | 22 | 0.000 |
Narrative Creativity | Time | Levene’s Test | df1 | df2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Graphic originality | Pre | 2.896 | 2 | 84 | 0.061 |
Post | 1.095 | 2 | 84 | 0.339 | |
Elaboration | Pre | 0.401 | 2 | 84 | 0.386 |
Post | 1.011 | 2 | 84 | 0.263 | |
Title | Pre | 2.480 | 2 | 84 | 0.090 |
Post | 0.638 | 2 | 84 | 0.531 | |
Special details | Pre | 5.105 | 2 | 84 | 0.008 |
Post | 20.983 | 2 | 84 | 0.001 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Graphic originality | |||||||
Pre–post | 30.520 | 1 | 30.540 | 4.160 | 0.045 | 0.047 | 0.522 |
Interaction | 60.180 | 2 | 30.090 | 4.099 | 0.020 | 0.089 | 0.712 |
Error | 616.659 | 84 | 7.347 | ||||
Years of stay | 22.078 | 2 | 11.039 | 4.099 | 0.020 | 0.089 | 0.371 |
Error | 508.417 | 84 | 6.053 | ||||
Elaboration | |||||||
Pre–post | 15,942 | 1 | 15,942 | 5.699 | 0.019 | 0.064 | 0.655 |
Interaction | 22.234 | 2 | 119.200 | 11.117 | 0.022 | 0.086 | 0.698 |
Error | 234.985 | 84 | 2.797 | ||||
Years of stay | 18.980 | 2 | 9.490 | 1.704 | 0.188 | 0.039 | 0.349 |
Error | 467.894 | 84 | 5.570 | ||||
Title | |||||||
Pre–post | 5.271 | 1 | 5.271 | 1.398 | 0.240 | 0.016 | 0.215 |
Interaction | 9.024 | 2 | 4.512 | 1.196 | 0.307 | 0.028 | 0.255 |
Error | 316.780 | 84 | 3.771 | ||||
Years of stay | 45.527 | 2 | 22.763 | 4.819 | 0.010 | 0.103 | 0.785 |
Error | 396.784 | 84 | 4.724 | ||||
Special details | |||||||
Pre–post | 7.247 | 1 | 7.247 | 5.006 | 0.028 | 0.056 | 0.599 |
Interaction | 15.057 | 2 | 7.529 | 5.200 | 0.007 | 0.110 | 0.817 |
Error | 121.609 | 84 | 1.448 | ||||
Years of stay | 11.351 | 2 | 5.675 | 3.060 | 0.052 | 0.068 | 0.577 |
Error | 155.822 | 84 | 1.875 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 year of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 5.500 | 1 | 5.500 | 0.821 | 0.386 | 0.076 | 0.130 |
Error | 67.000 | 10 | 6.700 | ||||
2 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 3.000 | 1 | 3.000 | 0.373 | 0.544 | 0.007 | 0.092 |
Error | 426.000 | 53 | 8.038 | ||||
3 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 63.841 | 1 | 63.841 | 10.842 | 0.003 | 0.340 | 0.881 |
Error | 9.382 | 21 | 0.447 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 year of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 14.727 | 1 | 14.727 | 4.297 | 0.065 | 0.301 | 0.466 |
Error | 67.000 | 10 | 6.700 | ||||
2 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 2.083 | 1 | 2.083 | 0.373 | 0.734 | 0.014 | 0.134 |
Error | 426.000 | 53 | 8.038 | ||||
3 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 8.205 | 1 | 8.205 | 3.426 | 0.078 | 0.140 | 0.423 |
Error | 50.295 | 21 | 0.447 |
Sums of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p | Partial η2 | Power | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 year of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 13.136 | 1 | 13.136 | 3.516 | 0.090 | 0.260 | 0.396 |
Error | 37.364 | 10 | 3.736 | ||||
2 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 4.481 | 1 | 4.481 | 6.331 | 0.015 | 0.107 | 0.695 |
Error | 37.519 | 53 | 708 | ||||
3 years of stay | |||||||
Pre–post | 2.273 | 1 | 2.273 | 1.021 | 0.324 | 0.046 | 0.162 |
Error | 46.727 | 21 | 2.225 |
Years of Stay at CEPAC | Mean Difference (I-J) | Error Dev. | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tukey’s HDS | 1–2 | 1.36 | 0.508 | 0.025 |
1–3 | 0.52 | 0.568 | 0.629 | |
2–3 | −0.83 | 0.389 | 0.088 |
Brown–Forsythe | df1 | df2 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Special details (pre) | 2.580 | 2 | 21.112 | 0.099 |
Special details (post) | 5.440 | 2 | 25.096 | 0.011 |
Years of Stay at CEPAC | Mean Difference (I–J) | Error Dev. | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tukey’s HDS | 1–2 | 0.015 | 0.321 | 0.999 |
1–3 | −0.909 | 0.358 | 0.034 | |
2–3 | −0.924 | 0.245 | 0.001 |
Creativity Pre | Creativity Post | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
r | p | r | p | |
Grade point average pre | 0.085 | 0.435 | – | – |
Grade point average post | – | – | 0.272 | 0.011 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Valadez, D.; Betancourt, J.; Flores Bravo, J.F.; Rodríguez-Naveiras, E.; Borges, A. Evaluation of the Effects of Grouping High Capacity Students in Academic Achievement and Creativity. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114513
Valadez D, Betancourt J, Flores Bravo JF, Rodríguez-Naveiras E, Borges A. Evaluation of the Effects of Grouping High Capacity Students in Academic Achievement and Creativity. Sustainability. 2020; 12(11):4513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114513
Chicago/Turabian StyleValadez, Dolores, Julián Betancourt, Juan Francisco Flores Bravo, Elena Rodríguez-Naveiras, and Africa Borges. 2020. "Evaluation of the Effects of Grouping High Capacity Students in Academic Achievement and Creativity" Sustainability 12, no. 11: 4513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114513
APA StyleValadez, D., Betancourt, J., Flores Bravo, J. F., Rodríguez-Naveiras, E., & Borges, A. (2020). Evaluation of the Effects of Grouping High Capacity Students in Academic Achievement and Creativity. Sustainability, 12(11), 4513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114513