Cognitive Characteristics, Creativity And Academic Achievements In Intellectually Gifted Primary Schoolchildren

Question 1

What are the peculiarities of the dynamic of cognitive characteristics and creativity of intellectually gifted younger students in comparison with their peers at the final stage of education in primary school (from 9 to 10 years)?

Question 2

Are there the relationships between the academic achievements in different subjects and verbal and figural creativity of primary school graduates?

Participants

The study sample included 110 primary schoolchildren in grades 2-4 in Moscow who participated in an ongoing longitudinal project. All participants were tested twice: the first time was in grades 2-3 and second - in 3-4 respectively). The mean age of the children at time 1 was 8.91 years, at time 2 – 10.0. All measurement waves occurred at the end of the academic year (April-May).

Methods

Raven’s SPM test was used to measure fluid intelligence and to select the group of intellectually gifted schoolchildren. The original version of test comprises 5 sets with 60 tasks in total was used.

Primary schoolchildren demonstrated the result in upper quartile have been included in intellectually gifted group (IGG, n=29; 14 boys, 15 - girls) and other – in control group (CG, n=81; 37 boys, 44 – girls).

Four Tikhomirova’s programed tests were used to measure such cognitive characteristics as “Number sense”, “Working memory” and “Reaction times” (Tikhomirova et al., 2019). Each participant performed the “blue–yellow dots” test (ANS) and NL test (Non-symbolic and Symbolic Numerosity Representations), “Sequences” (visual working memory) and “Reaction times” (reaction times of choosing the right answer) at each time point on a computer. On the following day, they performed the SPM test in paper-and-pencil format.

VFCT test (“Verbal and Figural Creativity Test”) has been designed to measure creativity in verbal and figural domain of activity (Shumakova, 2018). VFCT test has two parallel forms A and B, which allowed the use of different forms in wave 1 and 2. Two divergent thinking tasks were used: verbal and figural:

• Guesses. The children were showed the ambiguous figure and asked to make up as many different hypotheses of what it might have be as they could. The time for guessing was unlimited.

• Drawings. After the first part (Guesses) the children were asked to draw as many pictures as they could use these very figures. The children were provided with five sheets of paper. On each, six of the same ambiguous figures were presented. The time for drawing was unlimited. In the end (when the child did not have any more ideas), the child was asked to give a title to each picture.

Different indices of creativity were calculated for these divergent thinking tasks: fluency (number of ideas), flexibility, originality (statistical rarity), elaboration and total scores of Verbal and Figural Creativity.

Academic achievements were measured in two ways: traditional - with the school marks from the final-year school report and relatively new - final verification tests of achievements.

The study used the following methods of mathematical statistics: descriptive statistics, Independent and Paired Samples Tests, correlation analysis.

The dynamic of cognitive characteristics and creativity scores in intellectually gifted (IGG) and control group (CG) schoolchildren

At the first stage, descriptive statistics were calculated for the cognitive and creativity indicators in each group. Independent samples Student′s t-tests indicated significant differences between intellectually gifted (IGG) and Control group (CG) schoolchildren in fluid intelligence, different indices of cognitive characteristics as in wave 1 and 2.

Table 01 shows the means of cognitive characteristics scores for different groups in wave 1 and 2. Independent samples t-tests indicated significant differences between groups at wave 1 in scores of fluid intelligence, Non-symbolic Numerosity Representations (ANS test), visual working memory and reaction times of choosing the right answer. Iintellectually gifted schoolchildren (IGG) showed significantly higher scores of fluid intelligence, working memory, number sense (ANS test) and reaction times in compare to Control group (CG). They were also showed the better accuracy in NL test (Symbolic Numerosity Representations) but these differences weren’t statistically significant. Intellectually gifted schoolchildren retain their advantage in all the indicators noted above in a year (wave 2) with the exception of the "working memory".

An analysis of the dynamic of cognitive characteristics in control group (CG) of primary schoolchildren from 9 to 10 year showed the significant increase in all indicators (fluid intelligence, NL test, visual working memory and reaction times) except of ANS test (differences are statistically significant with p <0.01 , Paired Samples t-test). At the same time, in intellectually gifted schoolchildren (IGG) found the statistically significant increase only in reaction times indicator (p <0.05), although they retained their advantage in all cognitive indicators in compared to the control group (CG).

A comparative analysis of the results obtained using the test “Verbal and Figural Creativity” (VFCT) didn’t reveal statistically significant differences between the IGG and CG groups in terms of verbal and figurative creativity in either wave 1 or wave 2. The exception is the revealed difference in pictures’ elaboration between groups 1 and 2 per wave 1. Children from the control group (CG) showed more pictures’ elaboration than their intellectually gifted peers of 9 years (wave 1). Moreover, children from the CG found higher indicators of both verbal and figurative creativity than their intellectually gifted peers of 9 years old (IGG), although these differences were not statistically significant. In order to understand the reason for the lack of differences in creativity between IGG and CG groups, we conducted a frequency analysis of children with high creativity (the top quartile in terms of verbal or figurative creativity) in each group using the Fisher criterion (φ*). It was found that both in IGG and CG groups, the percentage of highly creative children does not significantly differ, although in control group they were slightly more than among the intellectually gifted schoolchildren. In fact, the data obtained are close to the results obtained in the well-known study by Wallach and Kogan, performed on older children (11-12 years), which indicate the coexistence of different combinations in terms of intelligence and creativity in different groups of children (Wallach & Kogan,1965). It is important to emphasize that in our study, as in the study of Wallach and Kogan, testing of creativity was carried out without time limitation. Children completed tasks as much as they wanted.

It is important to analyse the dynamic of creativity indicators (fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration) in intellectually gifted (IGG) and Control group (CG) schoolchildren between 9 and 10 years of age in each groups separately. Tables 02 - 03 show the means of verbal and figural creativity scores for different groups in wave 1 and 2. An analysis of the dynamic of verbal and figurative creativity in IGG and CG groups shows that the main line for the development of creativity between the ages of 9 and 10 is the development of verbal creativity. According to the data in Table 02 , it can be seen that both IGG and CG group shows a statistically significant increase in verbal fluency, flexibility, elaboration and a total score of verbal creativity. Children of 10 years of age can put forward much more diverse ideas and develop them verbally than they did a year ago (at 9 years old). Only originality does not show positive dynamic in this period. Our data are consistent with those obtained in other studies (Arkhireeva, 2013).

A comparative analysis of the dynamic of indicators of figural creativity in IGG and CG groups reveals significant differences. The data in table 03 show that in IGG group there is a significant increase in indicators of figural fluency, flexibility, as well as elaboration (at the level of the tendency), which is also described in the total score of figural creativity. On the contrary, in CG group, was not found the significant positive dynamic in any of the indicators of figural creativity, while the elaboration of the pictures was significantly reduced. Аs in the case of performing the verbal subtest, we did not find significant positive dynamic in the figural originality in both IGG and CG groups. Thus, we found the differences in developmental trajectories of creativity between IGG and CG groups in the final phase of primary school age. In IGG group, in comparison with CG group, a more harmonious (uniform) development of creativity is observed: the ability to put forward and develop diverse ideas is increase both in verbal and figural domain.

The relationship the creativity and children’s academic achievements

To explore the connections between cognitive characteristics, creativity and the academic achievements of 10^th year students, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed. The school marks from the final-year school report and the results of final verification tests of achievements were considered as indicators of the academic successes of schoolchildren. Tables 04 and 05 show the results of the correlation analysis (Pearson Correlation).

The Pearson correlation analysis of the cognitive characteristics, creativity and academic achievements of students completing primary school has revealed three important facts. The first was the lack of significant relationships between non-verbal intelligence and the studied cognitive characteristics on the one hand and indicators of verbal and figurative creativity, on the other (Table 04 ). This result agrees well with the fact that we have found before (that there are no significant differences in creativity indicators between IGG and CG groups). The second fact was the significant correlations between fluid intelligence, cognitive performance, and student academic achievement. This fact, in itself, is well known. However, in our case, we examined two indicators of student achievement, one of which is traditional for Russia and well-studied, and the second is recently introduced and studied insufficiently: 1 - school marks from the final-year school report and 2 - results of the final verification tests of achievements in Math, Russian language and Science. It was found that there are positive significant correlations between fluid intelligence and cognitive characteristics and only one indicator of academic achievement – traditional. At the same time there are not found any significant correlations between the same cognitive characteristics and another indicator of academic achievements - final verification tests of achievements (Table 05 ). Students with higher score in Raven’s SPM test showed significant higher school marks from the final-year school report in Math, Russian language and Science (r=.29, p≤0.01; r=30, p≤0.01; r=.24, p≤0,05). Also, schoolchildren of 10 years with better accuracy (NL test) and precision (ANS test), higher visual working memory and reaction times showed the higher school marks from the final-year school report. An exception is the reaction time indicator. The significant negative correlations between the reaction time and academic achievements in Math, Russian language and Science were found for two selected indicators. The shorter the time for choosing the right answer was showed by schoolchildren the better the achievements in Math, Russian language and Science were as in the school marks from the final-year school report and final verification tests of achievements.

Finally, the third fact is a significant connection between creativity and academic achievement at the age of 10 years. It was found а weak but significant positive correlation between verbal creativity and the success in final verification tests in Math, Russian language and Science (r=.32, r=.27, r=.28). Moderate and weak, but significant positive correlation was found between verbal fluency and flexibility on the one hand, and the success of the final tests of achievements in Math and Russian language on the other, between figural fluency and flexibility on the one hand, and the success in completing the final tests in Math with another.

Thus, the data we obtained suggest that the different indicators of the academic achievements of elementary school graduates are of a different nature. Creativity, the ability to put forward a wide variety of verbal ideas or many diverse figural ideas are of great importance in success in final verification tests (for Math and Russian language), whereas fluid intelligence and cognitive characteristics are of great importance in success of the school marks from the final-year school report. Reaction time is the only among other cognitive characteristics that affects the academic achievements of elementary school graduates, measured both in the traditional way and with the help of screening tests.