The Impact of Using Brainstorming in the Development of Creative Thinking and Achievement in the English Language of the 10th Grade Students at King Abdullah II Schools of Excellence in Amman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the effect of using brainstorming in the development of creative thinking and achievement in the English language among 10th grade students at King Abdullah II School of Excellence. The study sample consisted of (168) students. The problem of the study was to answer the main question: What is the impact of using brainstorming strategy in the development of creative thinking and achievement in English language of 10th grade students at King Abdullah II School of Excellence in Amman?, to answer this question and the sub questions, the researcher built the study tools, which were: 1) A test for creative thinking in English, prepared by the researcher. 2) Achievement test of English language prepared by the researcher and consisted of (30) multiple choice questions. The validity and reliability of the tools were verified. The researcher used the semi-experimental method according to the nature of the study. The researcher applied the pre and post study tools to the two groups (experimental and control), Where the students of the control group were taught using the normal way, while the experimental group was taught using the brainstorming strategy. The study was conducted in the second semester of the academic year 2017/2018. The results of the study showed that there were statistically significant differences at (α≤0.05) between the mean scores of the experimental group (taught using the brainstorming strategy) and the control group (taught in the usual way) in the pre/posttest of creative thinking. Results also showed there were statistically significant differences at (α≤0.05) between the mean scores of the experimental group (taught using the brainstorming strategy) and the control group (taught in the usual way) in each skill of creative thinking (fluency, flexibility, and originality) in the pre/posttest of creative thinking. And also there were statistically significant differences at (α≤0.05) between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group in the achievement test of English language. In light of the results of the study, the researcher proposed some recommendations such as: English language books in the educational stages should include some creative thinking skills, such as fluency, flexibility and originality, and the use of modern methods and strategies in teaching English in different educational stages, such as the use of brainstorming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".