SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.55Design and evaluation of a mobile-based intervention for Maya adults during the COVID-19 pandemicPositive and negative affect in the relationship between anxiety, depression, and emotional eating in migrants author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología

Print version ISSN 0120-0534

rev.latinoam.psicol. vol.55  Bogotá Dec. 2023  Epub Jan 12, 2024

https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2023.v55.23 

ARTICLES

UBUIngenio: extracurricular enrichment programme for the improvement of high ability students’ creative thinking

UBUIngenio: programa de enriquecimiento extracurricular para la mejora del pensamiento creativo en alumnado con altas capacidades

Martha Lucía Orozco Gómez1  * 

Radu Bogdan Toma2 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-7323

José Luis Cuesta Gómez1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0829-1629

María Merino Martínez3 

1 Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Burgos, Spain

2 Departamento de Didácticas Específicas, Universidad de Burgos, Spain

3 Asociación Autismo Burgos, Spain


Resumen

Background:

High-ability students require effective educational strategies. This study introduces and evaluates a curriculum enrichment programme aimed at enhancing cre ativity. The programme is based on a competency framework and was implemented using variations of Project-Based Learning (PBL) strategies.

Method:

A quasi-experimental design compared two interventions using pre-test and post-test groups. The first intervention (N = 38) involved a 12-week PBL unit focused on designing a video game using block-based program ming through Scratch. The second intervention (N = 51), also lasting 12 weeks, comprised three separate projects involving vectorial design and programming of an Arduino-based ro bot. Both interventions used strategies for creative-thinking development. The sample includ ed high-ability students from 8 to 12 years of age.

Results:

Both interventions significantly increased creativity, with no statistical differences between them. This suggests that both types of PBL interventions effectively improved participants’ creativity.

Conclusions:

This study suggests that PBL-based curricular enrichment programmes are effective in fostering creativity among high-ability students.

Palabras clave: Creativity; High Ability; project-based learning; creative thinking; extracurricular enrichment programme

Abstract

Antecedentes:

Los estudiantes con alta capacidad requieren estrategias educativas efectivas. Este estudio presenta y evalúa un programa de enriquecimiento curricular diseñado para mejorar la creatividad. El programa se basa en un marco de competencias y se implemen tó utilizando variaciones de estrategias de aprendizaje basado en proyectos (ABP).

Método:

Un diseño cuasi-experimental comparó dos intervenciones utilizando grupos pretest y postest. La primera intervención consistió en una unidad de ABP de 12 semanas centrada en el diseño de un videojuego utilizando programación basada en bloques mediante Scratch. La segunda intervención, también de 12 semanas de duración, consistió en tres proyectos independientes de diseño vectorial y programación de un robot basado en Arduino. En ambas intervencio nes se utilizaron estrategias para el desarrollo del pensamiento creativo. La muestra incluía estudiantes con altas capacidades de entre 8 y 12 años.

Resultados:

Ambas intervenciones aumentaron significativamente la creatividad, sin diferencias estadísticas entre ellas. Esto sugiere que ambos tipos de intervenciones de ABP mejoraron efectivamente la creatividad de los participantes.

Conclusiones:

Este estudio sugiere que los programas de enriquecimiento curricular basados en ABP son efectivos para fomentar la creatividad entre los estudiantes con altas capacidades.

Keywords: Creatividad; alta capacidad; aprendizaje basado en proyectos; pensamiento creativo; programa de enriquecimiento extracurricular

Creativity is the ability to generate new, valuable or practical ideas or products (Supena et al., 2021), and is con sidered a vital skill in the 21st century (Lin & Shih, 2022; Wulansari et al., 2019). Gifted students have been found to possess the ability to produce unique ideas (Johnsen, 2021; Sastre-Riba & Pascual-Sufrate, 2013). However, there is lim ited research on extracurricular initiatives that promote creativity (Pelfrey, 2011). Thus, as Renzulli (2012) empha sised a decade ago, there is a need for tailored programmes.

Given this context, the purpose of this study is to ex amine the impact of an out-of-school programme called UBUIngenio on the development of creativity in highly able students. This research is relevant and timely, particularly given the need for educational measures for addressing the educational needs of gifted students (Jakubakynov et al., 2021). The promotion of creativity has an important role in advancing society (Johnsen, 2021). Indeed, creativity is considered crucial to prevent negative consequences at both the societal and personal levels (Gómez-Pérez et al., 2014). Therefore, there is a need to address issues related to the role of gifted individuals as agents of change (Stern berg, 2020), which warrants investigation through enrich ment programmes that focus on the development of crea tivity (Hayhoe et al., 2022). The specific research question for this study is as follows:

How does an extracurricular enrichment programme ba sed on Project-Based Learning impact the creative deve lopment of students with high abilities?

Theoretical underpinnings

Creativity is a complex concept encompassing multi ple factors (Miner-Romanoff et al., 2019). It goes beyond generating novel ideas and products, playing a crucial role in problem-solving, critical thinking, and finding solutions to various daily life issues (Runco & Pritzker, 2020). In the 1950s, Guilford introduced a definition of creativity that included concrete and measurable indicators. This multi dimensional view categorised creativity into five compo nents: fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and di vergent thinking (Guilford, 1950). The modern definition of creativity can be traced back to Stein (1953), who charac terised it as the generation of new ideas that hold utili ty. Creativity involves integrating and reinventing existing knowledge and materials to create something novel, em phasising the identification of problems and asking relevant questions (Liu & Schonwetter, 2004). Cognitive flexibility, the ability to adapt and incorporate new ideas into one’s knowledge framework, is also a crucial aspect of creativi ty (Arán Filippetti & Krumm, 2020). In this sense, Cropley (2012) presented three perspectives for understanding cre ativity: processes, personality, and products/results.

The study of creativity is important due to its potential impact in various fields, including sciences, arts, engineer ing, and technology (Liu & Schonwetter, 2004). Companies that prioritise innovation require creative individuals for generating valuable ideas (Horkoff et al., 2019). Hence, it is important to promote creativity in education because it is a very prominent feature in diverse fields in the labour market. Thus, innovative teaching methods that promote creativity have become popular recently. In this sense, the literature suggests that socio-constructivist methodologies may foster the development of creativity (Moreno, 2022). For example, Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) promotes crea tivity and academic motivation in students (Fatimah, 2018). In the same vein, Project-Based Learning (PBL) is an innova tive educational strategy that emphasises creativity and its practical application across a range of disciplines (Jiang & Pang, 2023; Karyawati & Ashadi, 2018).

This student-centred approach promotes self-discov ery and self-regulation, allowing students to manage their metacognitive processes and learning. PBL also works well with gifted students (Diffily, 2002; Greeno, 2006). It is often used to foster creativity in primary and secondary school students (Hawari & Noor, 2020; Shatunova et al., 2019). The benefits of PBL have been recognised in the literature (Fitzgerald, 2020). Yuvaci and Daglioglu (2016) and Lew (2012) found that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation pos itively affect creative thinking. Thus, to motivate gifted students, prevent academic failure, and promote academic success, creativity and educational methods that enhance these skills must be promoted (Jakubakynov et al., 2021; Kim, 2008).

Examining creative processes can serve as a guide for teaching and nurturing creativity. The PBL methodology, as described by Ravitz et al. (2012), follows a similar creative process. It begins with a generative question that presents a problem to be solved or explored, followed by informa tion gathering, critical analysis, planning, and ultimately the development of a project or product (Abidin et al., 2021). Therefore, PBL serves as the theoretical framework for the curriculum enrichment programme investigated in this study.

The UBUIngenio programme

The UBUIngenio plan was designed as an out-of-school curriculum enrichment programme. It is delivered by teach ers from the Faculty of Education at the University of Bur gos with expertise and background in PBL and education for gifted and talented students. The programme aims to develop communication skills and promote knowledge and positive attitudes toward science while enhancing partici pants’ creativity and developing socio-emotional skills and self-regulation.

In this study, two interventions were designed and eval uated. Both interventions encouraged students to ask ques tions and approach problems from different perspectives. We incorporated creativity-related techniques including strategies such as SCAMPER (Ozyaprak, 2016; Wu & Wu, 2020). We also used strategies that promote the search for analogies. Such strategies were used to help students think about the materials being used and their role in solving a problem (Candrasekaran, 2014; Serikbayeva & Beisenbaye va, 2020). We draw on literature supporting the use of PBL as a framework for innovative teaching and learning methods. Hence, both interventions were rooted in edu cational principles such as discovery learning (Campos et al., 2020). This approach encourages the exploration of the connection between different fields of knowledge (Dogan & Pahre, 2019). Both interventions were carried out during after-school hours, each week on Friday afternoon. The in terventions have been implemented by a total of 2 different teachers, one for the emotional part and one for the tech nological part (see description below). Next, we will briefly describe each intervention.

Intervention 1

The first intervention was based on the use of computa tional programming, through Scratch. It consisted of twelve sessions of two hours each. The first part of each session centred on the development of emotional competencies, due to the relationship between emotional intelligence and the learning process and achievement (Ferragut & Fierro Bardají, 2012; López Zafra & Jiménez Morales, 2009). Stu dents were asked to identify a future problem that could be solved through projects centred on emotional compe tence. Activities included brainstorming, communicative strategies, visual thinking, and emotional recognition and regulation. The second part centred on the development of technological competencies. Specifically, it consisted of creating a game using Scratch, a software for block-based programming (Su et al., 2022). Students were instructed on how to use the programming blocks and their task was to create a videogame related to the first part of the sessions. The process included planning the videogame, program ming it, and refining it by introducing new elements, such as moving objects, sounds, or adding different animations. Regarding the use of Scratch, Kobsiripat (2015) concluded that it had beneficial effects on the promotion of creative skills. Similarly, the intervention of Husna et al. (2019) with Scratch also reported improvements in creativity. Based on these findings, we anticipate that the first intervention will positively impact highly able students’ creative thinking abilities.

Intervention 2

The second intervention had similar characteristics to the first one in terms of duration and structure. Howev er, the content of the second part of the sessions varied. Instead of solely designing a videogame with Scratch, the twelve-week intervention consisted of three different pro jects, each lasting four weeks. The projects involved pro gramming an Arduino robot (Budi et al., (2019), the study of electricity through various materials, and vectorial design, allowing students to learn the basic operations of these tools. In each of the three microprojects, students were required to generate a product or solve a problem individu ally or in small teams. Specifically, the first project involved constructing a painter robot using recyclable materials. To accomplish this, various activities related to electrici ty, using blocks, and experiments with Play-Doh were un dertaken. The second micro-project focused on designing and decorating t-shirts with vinyl. At the beginning of the project, students learned to use the Inkscape programme for vectorial design. Subsequently, they used a vinyl-cut ting machine to cut out their designs and ironed them onto their t-shirts. The third and final micro-project centred on visual programming using block-based programming (Toma, 2021). In this project, students learned about Escornabot, an open-code robot used for learning basic programming concepts. Previous research identified improvements in creativity when teaching with robots (Noh & Lee, 2020) or Arduino programming (Guven et al. 2022). Based on these findings, we anticipated that the second intervention would also positively influence the creative thinking abilities of high ability students.

Method

Design and power analysis

A quasi-experimental, two-group pre-test/post-test de sign was adopted (Shadish et al., 2002). Key analyses com prised 2 (intervention #1 and #2) x 2 (pre-test-post-test) ANOVA. The required sample size was determined for the interaction between treatment and time and within-group analysis using G*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2007). It was deter mined that with an alpha = .05 and a power = .80, a mod erate effect size (n2 p = 0.06) might require a minimum of 34 participants (17 per intervention). This study was conduct ed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The procedures used in this study were approved by the bioethics committee of the University of Burgos. Written informed consent for participation, data collection, and publication of the findings was obtained from the par ents or legal guardians of the participants.

Participants

A sample for the province of Burgos was prepared using purposive sampling techniques (Cohen et al., 2018). Figure 1 presents the flow diagram of the study. The schools re ceived a letter of invitation specifying the characteristics of the programme and inviting them to inform the families of potential and previously diagnosed highly able students.

Figure 1 Flow diagram of the study 

Participants from different schools, aged 8 to 12 years old were assessed for eligibility. Some of them were already identified as students with high abilities. Participants re ceived no monetary or other types of incentives for partici pating in the programme. A group of four specialists admin istered the BADyG test to the students (Yuste et al., 2012). All participating students eligible for the study had Intelli gence Quotients (IQs) higher than 119 and were randomly assigned to one of the interventions. Five participants were excluded from the study because they missed more than one intervention session. Additionally, four participants were excluded for missing the post-test. Furthermore, one par ticipant from intervention 2, identified as a univariate outli er during the pre-test, was also excluded. This participant’s score was 22, whereas the group mean was 8.26. As a result, the final sample consisted of 38 students (31.6% girls) in In tervention 1 and 51 students (23.5% girls) in Intervention 2.

Instruments

The CREA Creative Intelligence Test (Corbalán et al., 2015), developed and widely applied in the Spanish context, was used to assess the creativity of the participants. The results of numerous investigations have indicated that the CREA test is a valid and reliable test of creativity (for a re view, see Corbalán et al., 2015). Based on classical factors of creativity such as divergent thinking, flexibility, fluency, and originality, the CREA test proposes a unified cognitive measure of creativity. To achieve this, participants are in structed to spend four minutes formulating as many ques tions as possible regarding a visual stimulus (e.g., an image presented on a printed sheet). Afterwards, the questions are evaluated using the quantitative approach explained in Formula 1. This approach assumes that a greater number of questions reflects greater creative development. It is worth mentioning that CREA has three different versions (version A, B, and C), each presenting a different visual stimulus depending on the age of the participants. For the present study, version C was used and scored accordingly. The scores for the CREA-C in the Spanish sample of children between 6 and 11 years of age yield a mean score of 9.36 (SD = 5.74; Corbalán et al., 2015).

DS = N - O - inQ + EP (1)

Note: DS = Direct score; NS = Number of asked questions; O = number of blank spaces or omissions; inQ = number of invalidated questions (repeated, similar, or decontextual ised); and EP = Extra points for double or triple questions.

A total of 20% of the questionnaires were evaluated by two raters in order to assess inter-rater reliability using a two-way, mixed-effects, absolute agreement Intraclass Cor relation Coefficient, following established guidelines (Koo & Li, 2016). The inter-rater agreement was found to be .947 (95% CI = .88 to .98), which is regarded as excellent.

Data analyses

A Shapiro-Wilk (W) test indicated that the data from in tervention 1 had normal distributions both in the pre-test W(38) = .95, p = .09 and in the post-test W(38) = .97, p = .51. Likewise, the data from intervention 2 were normally dis tributed in the pre-test W(51) = .97, p = .14 and the post-test W(51) = .96, p = .11. Hence, a 2 x 2 repeated measure ANOVA was conducted to compare scores on the creativity test in the pre-test (pre-intervention) and post-test (post-interven tion) and in an independent sample t-test to examine dif ferences in pre-test scores between interventions in terms of age or creativity level. The effect size was determined based on Cohen’s (1988) partial eta squared criteria of .01 (small), .06 (moderate), and .14 (large).

Results

Several previous analyses were conducted. An inde pendent sample t-test showed no significant differences in the pre-test scores between participants in intervention 1 (M = 7.87) and intervention 2 (M = 8.25), t(87) = -.53, p = .60. Additionally, there were no significant differences in participant age between interventions 1 (M = 9.61) and 2 (M = 9.67), t(87) = -0.19, p = .85. Therefore, age and pre-test scores were not used as covariates.

Regarding the main analyses, there was no significant interaction effect between intervention type and time: F(1, 87) = .32, p = .57 (Figure 2). These results indicate that there was no difference in the change in scores between the two pedagogical conditions over time.

Figure 2 Intervention*Time interaction 

An exploration of mean levels indicates that both in terventions led to an improvement in creativity (Table 1). To test the statistical significance of this improvement, we conducted follow-up within-group analyses. The results re vealed a significant main effect for time, with F(1, 87) = 73.5, p < .01, partial eta squared = .46. The effect size was large, hence, both groups showed a statistically significant in crease in creativity after the intervention (Table 1).

Table 1 Estimated marginal means 

Finally, the main effect comparing the two types of in tervention was not statistically significant, F(1, 87) = .56, p = .46. This suggests that both interventions were equally effective in improving the creativity of the participants.

Discussion

In the present study, two interventions rooted in PBL were designed and assessed in terms of their effect on the creativity levels of students with high abilities. In the first intervention, the methodology involved the identification of a problem and the creation of a product using Scratch programming software. In the second intervention, three micro-projects regarding the coding of Arduino-based ro bots and vectorial design printers were implemented. Both interventions lasted twelve weeks.

The results showed that the development of out-of-school, enrichment programmes that use PBL methodolo gies has a positive effect on creativity, in accordance with extant literature (Folsom, 2005; Kobsiripat, 2015; Makkonen et al., 2021). The novel aspect of our findings is the focus on an under-investigated population, namely, highly able stu dents in primary school education. The results suggested that a PBL model that sets out the solution to a single prob lem, as in the case of Intervention 1, has the same impact on creativity as an enrichment model based on micro-pro jects, as conducted in Intervention 2. Taken together, the results from this study suggested that creativity, as meas ured by a valid and reliable divergent thinking test (Corbalán et al., 2015), can be improved in highly able students either by PBL projects focusing on the use of block-based programming software, such as Scratch, or by using PBL in different micro-projects regarding other technology and in formation communication resources, such as 3D printers.

Implications

The findings of this investigation have important impli cations. On the one hand, they provide evidence for the effectiveness of enrichment programmes in fostering crea tivity in gifted students. The theoretical and methodolog ical approach used in the UBUIngenio programme can be transferred and applied in other similar contexts. Moreover, this study signals the importance of delivering enrichment programmes specifically designed for highly able students (Renzulli & Reis, 2021), while raising the question of wheth er such programmes may be also effective for non-highly able students. Hence, future research exploring this aspect is warranted. In addition, future studies should explore the impact, if any, of such an enrichment programme on the creativity level of highly able boys and girls from secondary school education.

Furthermore, future research is also needed to deter mine how this project could be scaled up to be implement ed in a formal classroom context, rather than as an ex tracurricular activity. This would be a laudable effort, in that it will require teacher training in socio-constructivist approaches, including the use of block-based programming resources, as well as techniques for the development of creative thinking.

Limitations and avenues for future studies

Despite the timely and relevant findings reported in this study, this investigation has several limitations. First, we used a measurement instrument that did not allow us to examine the different components of creativity separately (Corbalán et al., 2015). Hence, there is a need for future studies using specific instruments that gather information on the different components of creativity, such as fluency, flexibility, and originality. Likewise, findings should be inter preted considering that there could have been differences in the application of the intervention. While both interven tions were implemented by the same two teachers, each teacher may have introduced bias in how the PBL methodol ogy was enacted. Also, given the sample size, there are lim itations to the generalisability of the findings across ages, cultures, etc. Finally, since emotional competence was an important aspect of both interventions (Matthews et al., 2018), future studies addressing the impact of the UBUIn genio programme on emotional constructs are encouraged 1.

Acknowledgments

This investigation has been conducted as part of the UBUIngenio project, supported by the Federación Españo la para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT - Spanish Foun dation for Science and Technology) under grant number FCT-17-12439.

References

Abidin, Z., Herman, T., Jupri, A., & Farokhah, L. (2021). Gifted children’s mathematical reasoning abilities on problem-based learning and project-based learning literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1720(1), 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1720/1/012018Links ]

Arán Filippetti, V., & Krumm, G. (2020). A hierarchical model of cognitive flexibility in children: Extending the relationship be tween flexibility, creativity and academic achievement. Child Neuropsychology, 26(6), 770-800. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2019.1711034Links ]

Budi, K. S., Muslim, S., & Santosa, A. B. (2019). Literature study on the influence of Arduino microcontroller trainer media on crea tive thinking level and student learning outcomes in microcon troller learning. International Symposium on Social Sciences, Education, and Humanities (ISSEH 2018) (pp. 90-94). Atlantis Press. [ Links ]

Campos, V., Trott, A., Xiong, C., Socher, R., Giró-i-Nieto, X., & Torres, J. (2020). Explore, discover and learn: Unsupervised discovery of state-covering skills. International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 1317-1327). PMLR. [ Links ]

Candrasekaran, S. (2014). Developing scientific attitude, critical thinking and creative intelligence of higher secondary school biology students by applying synectics techniques. Interna tional Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 3(6), 1-8. https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v3(6)/Version-2/A03620108.pdfLinks ]

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Links ]

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge. [ Links ]

Corbalán Berná, F. J., Martínez Zaragoza, F., Donolo, D. S., Alon so Monreal, C., Tejerina Arreal, Mª., & Limiñana Gras, R. M. (2015). CREA Inteligencia creativa. Una medida cognitiva de la creatividad. Tea Ediciones. [ Links ]

Cropley, A. (2012). Creativity and education: An Australian per spective. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 22(1), 9-26. [ Links ]

Diffily, D. (2002). Project-based learning: Meeting social studies standards and the needs of gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 40-59. [ Links ]

Dogan, M., & Pahre, R. (2019). Creative marginality: Innovation at the intersections of social sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429044526Links ]

Fatimah, S. (2018). The effect of project-based science learning on PGSD students’ creative thinking ability. Journal Pendidikan Indonesia, 7(2), 100-105. [ Links ]

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, be havioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146Links ]

Ferragut, M., & Fierro Bardají, A. (2012). Inteligencia emocional, bienestar personal y rendimiento académico en preadolescen tes. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(3), 95-104. [ Links ]

Fitzgerald, M. S. (2020). Overlapping opportunities for social-emo tional and literacy learning in elementary-grade project-based instruction. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 573-601. https://doi.org/10.1086/709545Links ]

Folsom, C. (2005). Making conceptual connections between gifted and general education: Teaching for intellectual and emotional learning (TIEL). Roeper Review, 28(2), 79-87. [ Links ]

Gómez-Pérez, M. M., Mata-Sierra, S., García-Martín, M. B., Cale ro-García, M. D., Molinero-Caparrós, C., & Bonete-Román, S. (2014). Valoración de un programa de habilidades inter personales en niños superdotados. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 46(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0120-0534(14)70007-xLinks ]

Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79-96). Cambridge University Press. [ Links ]

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444- 454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487Links ]

Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 108-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136Links ]

Hawari, A. D. M., & Noor, A. I. M. (2020). Project based learning pedagogical design in STEAM art education. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(3), 102-111. [ Links ]

Hayhoe, R., García Ruiz, M. J., & Martínez Usarralde, M. J. (2022). Creativity, curiosity and new thinking in comparative educa tion in relation to the new norms of the XXIst century. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, (40), 10-14. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.40.2022.32096Links ]

Horkoff, J., Maiden, N., & Asboth, D. (2019). Creative goal modeling for innovative requirements. Information and Software Technology, 106, 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.005Links ]

Husna, A., Cahyono, E., & Fianti, F. (2019). The effect of project based learning model aided scratch media toward learning outcomes and creativity. Journal of Innovative Science Educa tion, 8(1), 1-7. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/jise/article/view/25584Links ]

Jakubakynov, B., Berechikidze, I., Kartashova, O., & Kochetkova, G. (2021). Gifted students creativity: The role of preliminary orientation and individual learning strategies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100883Links ]

Jiang, C., & Pang, Y. (2023). Enhancing design thinking in engi neering students with project-based learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31, 814-830. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22608Links ]

Johnsen, S. K. (2021). Definitions, models, and characteristics of gifted students. Identifying gifted students (pp. 1-32). Rout ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235682-1Links ]

Karyawati, A., & Ashadi, A. (2018). Innovation in the classroom: En gaging English as a foreign learning student using project-based learning. Lingtera, 5(1), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.21831/lt.v5i1.17067Links ]

Kim, K. H. (2008). Underachievement and creativity: Are gifted underachievers highly creative? Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802060232Links ]

Kobsiripat, W. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the scratch programming capabilities of creativity of elementary school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 227- 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.651Links ]

Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and report ing Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012Links ]

Lew, K. H. (2012). TA longitudinal study of the effect of creativ ity educational program. Journal of the Korea Academia-In dustrial cooperation Society, 13(10), 4536-4542. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2012.13.10.4536Links ]

Lin, W. L., & Shih, Y. L. (2022). Developmental trends of different creative potentials in relation to adolescents’ critical thinking abilities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 100979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100979Links ]

Liu, Z., & Schonwetter, D. J. (2004). Teaching creativity in engi neering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(5), 801-808. https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol20-5/IJEE1511.pdfLinks ]

López Zafra, E., & Jiménez Morales, I. (2009). Inteligencia emocio nal y rendimiento escolar: estado actual de la cuestión. Revis ta Latinoamericana de Psicología, 41(1), 69-80. [ Links ]

Makkonen, T., Tirri, K., & Lavonen, J. (2021). Engagement in learning physics through project-based learning: A case study of gifted finnish upper-secondary-level students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(4), 501-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211018644Links ]

Matthews, G., Lin, J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2018). Emo tional intelligence and giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shau nessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 585-600). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-038Links ]

Miner-Romanoff, K., Rae, A., & Zakrzewski, C. E. (2019). A holistic and multifaceted model for ill-structured experiential problem-based learning: Enhancing student critical thinking and communication skills. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 70-96. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v7i1.3341Links ]

Moreno, C. (2022). Pedagogía socio constructivista para promover aprendizajes creativos: socio-constructive pedagogy to pro mote creative learning. Revista Episteme, 3, 127-146. http://revistas.unellez.edu.ve/index.php/retm/article/view/1658Links ]

Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-wLinks ]

Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted young scientists, 4(1), 31-40. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jegys/issue/37319/430616Links ]

Pelfrey, R. (2011). Classroom behaviors in elementary school teachers identified as fostering creativity. Northern Kentucky University. [ Links ]

Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M., & Mergendoller, J. (2012, April). Using project based learning to teach 21st century skills: Findings from a statewide initiative. American Educational Research Association Conference, Vancouver, Canada. [ Links ]

Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoret ical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901Links ]

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2021). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development. Routledge. [ Links ]

Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of cre ativity. Academic press. [ Links ]

Sastre-Riba, S., & Pascual-Sufrate, M. T. (2013). Alta capacidad intelectual, resolución de problemas y creatividad (High in tellectual capacity, problem solving and creativity). Revis ta de neurología, 56(1), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.56S01.2013025Links ]

Serikbayeva, A., & Beisenbayeva, L. (2020). Synectics as a modern method of solving creative problems. Paradigm Shifts in 21st Century Teaching and Learning (pp. 145-157). IGI Global. [ Links ]

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal infer ence. Houghton Mifflin and Company. [ Links ]

Shatunova, O., Anisimova, T., Sabirova, F., & Kalimullina, O. (2019). STEAM as an innovative educational technology. Journal of So cial Studies Education Research, 10(2), 131-144. [ Links ]

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychol ogy, 36(2), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1953.9712897Links ]

Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230- 240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1815266Links ]

Su, Y. S., Shao, M., & Zhao, L. (2022). Effect of mind mapping on creative thinking of children in scratch visual programming education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 906-929. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211053383Links ]

Supena, I., Darmuki, A., & Hariyadi, A. (2021). The influence of 4C (constructive, critical, creativity, collaborative) learning model on students’ learning outcomes. International Jour nal of Instruction, 14(3), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14351aLinks ]

Toma, R. B. (2021). Measuring acceptance of block-based coding environments. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 241- 251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09562-xLinks ]

Wu, T. T., & Wu, Y. T. (2020). Applying project-based learning and SCAMPER teaching strategies in engineering education to ex plore the influence of creativity on cognition, personal motiva tion, and personality traits. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100631Links ]

Wulansari, R., Rusnayati, H., Saepuzaman, D., Karim, S., & Feranie, S. A. (2019). The influence of scientific creativi ty and critical worksheets (SCCW) on creative thinking skills and critical scientific as well as students’ cognitive abili ties on project-based learning work and energy concepts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/5/052039Links ]

Yuste H. C., Yuste Peña D. & Galve Manzano J.L. (2012). BADyG (Batería de Aptitudes Diferenciales y Generales - Battery of Differential and General Aptitudes). CEPE editorial. [ Links ]

Yuvaci, Z., & Daglioglu, H. E. (2016). Teacher’s part to support creativeness of gifted children in pre-school period and activ ity examples. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 8(1), 39-61 [ Links ]

Received: April 19, 2023; Accepted: July 11, 2023

* Corresponding author: Martha Lucía Orozco Gómez, email: mlorozco@ubu.es

Conflict of interest:

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License