Divergent production in gifted adolescents using timed vs. untimed stimuli with creative prompting

Although creativity and expertise are related, they are nonetheless very different things. Expertise does not usually require creativity, but creativity generally does require a certain level of expertise. There are similarities in the relationships of both expertise and creativity to domains, however. Research has shown that just as expertise in one domain does not predict expertise in other, unrelated domains, creativity in one domain does not predict creativity in other, unrelated domains. People may be expert, and people may be creative, in many domains, or they may be expert, or creative, in few domains or none at all, and one cannot simply transfer expertise, or creativity, from one domain to another, unrelated domain. The domain specificity of creativity matters crucially for creativity training, creativity assessment, creativity research, and creativity theory. The domain specificity of creativity also means that interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and interdisciplinary creativity are even more important than one would assume if creativity were domain general.     

Evaluating Growth for ELL Students: Implications for Accountability Policies

In recent years, many U.S. states have introduced growth models as part of their educational accountability systems. Although the validity of growth‐based accountability models has been evaluated for the general population, the impact of those models for English language learner (ELL) students, a growing segment of the student population, has not received sufficient attention. We evaluated three commonly used growth models: value tables or transition matrices, projection models, and student growth percentiles (SGP). The value table model identified more ELL students as on track to proficiency, but with lower accuracy for ELL students. The projection and SGP models were more accurate overall, but classified the fewest ELL students as on track and were less likely to identify ELL students who would later be proficient. We found that each model had significant trade‐offs in terms of the decisions made for ELL students. These findings should be replicated in additional state contexts and considered in the development of future growth‐based accountability policies.     

Early years teachers and the influence of Piaget: evidence from oral history

In studying the historical development of early years provision, a clear factor in raising its profile was the growth in scientific study of children, especially the reception and interpretation of Piaget's research. For an understanding of how the mediation of new thinking and new discoveries influenced students and teachers, textbooks provide an important documentary source, but evidence is also available through oral history in the living memories of practitioners themselves. This paper draws on the testimony of early years teachers who began their careers between 1927 and 1955 and continued teaching into the 1960s and 1970s. The account below begins with reflections on psychology and education in the early decades of the twentieth century drawn from a 1936 conference organised by the Nursery School Association of Great Britain, and from a widely used textbook that represents the gradual trend towards ‘fragmentation’ of educational theory into a multiplicity of disciplines. Reference is then made to two popular textbooks by prominent Froebelians, Brearley and Hitchfield, and by Ruth Beard illustrating the growing influence of Piaget as a post facto rationale for a pedagogy that was proceeding by instinct. Walkerdine, Lister and Hall are researchers who have investigated from various angles the impact of Piagetian psychology on primary practice, but the process whereby this translation from the laboratory to the classroom takes place is one that demands further investigation. Vital evidence lies in the living memories of early years teachers whose careers spanned the 1930s to the 1970s and a rich quality and personal texture of the data is apparent as retired early years teachers recounted their professional careers. It offers a more complex account than the grand narratives that historians have traditionally compiled from purely documentary evidence centring on great thinkers, key texts and policy initiatives. The role of in‐service education was clearly important in the experiences recalled in this paper. Above all we find evidence of a distinctive shift in teacher–child relationships over that historical period and of the contribution made to this by psychological theory, epitomised in the figure of Piaget and in his focus on the individual learner.