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.