Gifted and Talented International

ISSN: 1533-2276 (Print) 2470-9565 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ugti20

Creative ideation and motivated strategies for

learning of academically talented students in
Greek secondary school

Dimitrios Zbainos & Vassiliki Beloyianni

To cite this article: Dimitrios Zbainos & Vassiliki Beloyianni (2018): Creative ideation and
motivated strategies for learning of academically talented students in Greek secondary school,
Gifted and Talented International, DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2018.1547620

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1547620

Published online: 25 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ugti20
GIFTED AND TALENTED INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1547620

Creative ideation and motivated strategies for learning of academically talented

students in Greek secondary school
Dimitrios Zbainos and Vassiliki Beloyianni
Harokopio University of Athens

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
A consistent body of research has indicated that intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and creative Motivational learning
ideation tend to facilitate academic performance. This article examines differences in self- strategies; self-regulation;
regulated learning strategies, motivational beliefs, and creative ideation among academically motivational beliefs;
creativity; ideation;
talented students, high achievers, and ordinary achieving students in Greek secondary school.
academic performance
To assess the relationship between motivational strategies for learning, ideational behavior, and
academic performance, a sample of 287 students between the ages of 13 and 18 completed the
Runco Ideational Behavior Scale and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire.
Furthermore, their school grades were used to provide data about their academic performance.
The results indicated that academically talented students tended to use more self-regulated
learning strategies and displayed higher self-efficacy and stronger motivational beliefs. Creative
ideation was found to be negatively correlated with academic achievement, especially for low and
moderate achievers. In conclusion, according to the results, high academic performance appeared
to be related to higher academic self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and use of
cognitive strategies. Nevertheless, it appeared to be related to lower creative ideation.

Introduction soon after youngsters have begun learning a new set

Academic achievement refers to the outcomes of
education and, specifically, to the extent to which
a student reaches the main goals of an educational
system (Ward, Stoker, & Murray-Ward, 1996).
Usually, academic performance is measured by
continuous assessment and/or exams and is
coded as a grade point average (O’Connor,
Chassie, & Walther, 1980, Ward et al., 1996).
However, despite the variety of academic objec-
tives in different educational contexts, every school
has its own high and low achievers (Allen, 2005,
Ward et al., 1996).
According to Gagne’s Differentiated Model of
Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), the term talent
describes the advanced mastery of abilities and
skills that are systematically developed in at least
one specific field of activity to a degree that places
the individual in the top 10% in comparison with
their peers. Children with high achievement can be
characterized as academically talented (Gagné,
2001, 2005). According to Gagné (2004), academic
talent can be identified even in early years:
of skills, it becomes possible to assess their perfor-
mances normatively, comparing them with others
who have been learning for an approximately equal
amount of time. In schools, such assessments can
begin as early as kindergarten… During their first
years in school, some students can obtain grades
within the top 10 per cent of their class and, conse-
quently, be labeled academically talented” (p. 124)
In this regard, a consistent body of research has
attempted to determine the psychological qualities
and environmental factors that influence academic
performance and set exceptionally high achievers
or “academically talented students” apart (e.g.,
Anwar, Shamim-ur-Rasool, & Haq, 2012;
Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Kosnin, 2007).
In relation to the possible psychological con-
structs, motivational beliefs and self-regulated stra-
tegies in learning have been extensively studied as
variables that strongly affect academic achievement
(e.g., Kosnin, 2007; Kusurkar, Ten Cate, Vos,
Westers, & Croiset, 2013; Lemos & Verissimo, 2013).
According to Pintrich’s expectancy-value model
of motivation, there are three fundamental concepts

CONTACT Vassiliki Beloyianni vbeloyianni@hua.gr Venizelou 70, Kallithea 17676, Athens, Greece
© 2018 World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
2 D. ZBAINOS AND V. BELOYIANNI
that determine students’ general motivational
response to specific tasks (Pintrich, 1988, 1989;
Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990), namely (1) an expec-
tancy component, (2) a value component, and (3)
an affective component. The expectancy component
applies to students’ perceptions and beliefs about
their ability to accomplish tasks and reach goals,
generally known as self-efficacy (Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). The
value component relates to students’ beliefs about
the significance and interest of the task (Markou &
Philippou, 2005; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990), and the
affective component refers to the specific emotional
responses to a task (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Of
course, there are a variety of affective responses that
might be expressed in response to a task. However,
in school settings, test anxiety, defined as a condition
of severe worry that negatively affects performance
during a test, is the most common (Metallidou &
Vlachou, 2007; Pintrich et al., 1993).
Within school context, self-regulation and motiva-
tional beliefs are customarily considered factors that
facilitate academic performance. A consistent body of
research has indicated substantive links between self-
regulating learning and academic performance in
young children and adolescents (e.g., Broadbent &
Poon, 2015; McClelland & Cameron, 2011; Pintrich
& DeGroot, 1990). Other authors have identified the
strong and positive predictive effects of intrinsic moti-
vation on the academic performance of adolescents
(Kusurkar et al., 2013; Lemos & Verissimo, 2013).
Academic classification of Greek secondary
students
It is a common practice around the world for high
achievers to receive distinctions and prizes from their
schools and local community. In Greece, the most
prestigious distinction for high achievers is to bear
the Greek flag in parades during the two major
national celebrations. Specifically, flag bearers repre-
sent a small minority of the total school population,
characterized by their exceptionally high academic
achievements. Each flag bearer in Greek parades is
surrounded by a group of five attendants, who are also
distinguished for their high academic performance.
However, attendants represent a wider part of the
student population, and, although they are high aca-
demic achievers, they have never been among the top
two students of their class. The remaining parade
consists of moderate or low achievers, who have
never received any distinction for their academic per-
formance (Vouyoukas, 2007).
According to the most recent report of Hellenic
Statistical Authority (2015), in 2014 general sec-
ondary education included 1,794 lower secondary
and 1,306 upper secondary schools with 310,389
and 241,905 students, respectively. Since only the
two highest achieving students of each school bear
the national flag each school year, it is estimated
that flag bearers represent only 1.16% (N = 3,588)
of the lower secondary students and 1.08%
(N = 2,612) of the upper secondary students,
approximately. Therefore, flag bearers undoubt-
edly belong to the top 10% of achievers of each
school and can be considered to be academically
talented according to Gagne’s definition of talent.
Although flag bearers have attracted social and
media attention in Greece, they have never been on
the focus of psycho-educational research. In this
respect, this study examined the relationships between
self-regulation, intrinsic motivation, and creative
ideation among these three subgroups of secondary
school students. Moreover, the possible relationship
between academic achievement, self-regulated learn-
ing, motivational beliefs, and creativity was investi-
gated. Since research about the relationship between
these factors is still limited, this study sought to
answer the following research questions:
● Do flag bearers, attendants, and regular students,
i.e., students without any distinctions, vary sig-
nificantly in their academic achievement?
● Do flag bearers, attendants, and regular stu-
dents vary in terms of their motivational beliefs,
creative ideation, and self-regulated learning?
● What are the inter-relationships among self-
regulated learning strategies, motivational
beliefs, creative ideation, and academic per-
formance of secondary school students?
● Do self-regulated learning strategies, motiva-
tional beliefs, and creative ideation have an
effect on the academic achievement of flag
bearers, attendants, and regular students?
● Do motivational beliefs, self-regulated learn-
ing strategies, and academic achievement
explain the creative ideation of flag bearers,
attendants, and regular students?

Results from this study may indicate some of
the psychological differences between low and
high achievers and reveal some key recommenda-
tions for ensuring continued academic success in
teaching practice.
Creativity and creative ideation
In recent years, some research has suggested that
creativity may be related to academic achievement.
It is not clear, however, the extents to which creative
abilities are being taken into account in academic
assessments (e.g., Anwar et al., 2012, Kuncel, Hezlett,
& Ones, 2004). Creativity and innovation are becom-
ing more valued in modern knowledge societies,
since they are recognized as essential prerequisites
for economic, social, technological, and scientific
progress within different cultural and working con-
texts (Craft, 2005; Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010;
Leung & Wang, 2015). Hence, as creativity and
innovation are deemed to be both social values and
skills by modern socio-educational systems, their
development holds a prime position in the hierarchy
of objectives in school curricula (Amabile, 1996;
Kozbelt et al., 2010).
Assuredly, numerous definitions and theories
have been offered to explain the mechanism of crea-
tive expression. In general, these various theoretical
approaches to creativity can be considered in terms
of the particular aspect of creativity they emphasize
(Kozbelt et al., 2010; Sternberg, 2006). According to
the most commonly used definition, creativity is the
ability to produce appropriate and original ideas that
are also useful within a social context (Brown, 1989,
Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
Generally, although creative thinking tends to
involve most of the common cognitive processes,
such as memory, attention, and conjunction, it is
based on a complex process called divergent thinking
(Plucker & Renzulli, 1999; Runco, 1992; Silvia et al.,
2008). Divergent thinking, also known as creative
ideation, is described as the process of creating
a variety of different novel ideas to specified open
problems (Runco, 1992; Runco, Plucker, & Lim,
2001). In other words, creative ideation refers to
the ability to produce numerous alternative and ori-
ginal answers during creative problem solving,
which is the core for developing strategies to
improve creative performance, such as
GIFTED AND TALENTED INTERNATIONAL 3
brainstorming (Fink & Benedek, 2014; Fink,
Benedek, Grabner, Staudt, & Neubauer, 2007;
Runco & Jaeger, 2012).
Thus creative ideation is a key process that,
among others, determines the qualitative and quan-
titative features of the creative responses of an
individual (Fink & Benedek, 2014; Runco, 1992;
Runco et al., 2001). However, since creativity is
a complex and multifactorial phenomenon, many
authors have highlighted the difficulties and chal-
lenges in assessing creative ideation (Plucker &
Renzulli, 1999; Runco et al., 2001). Although
many different measuring instruments of divergent
thinking have been recommended as a means to
assess creative ideation, self-reported scales have
been found to possess a moderate predictive validity
when listing criteria related to ideational behaviors
(Batey & Furnham, 2006; Runco & Basadur, 1993).
In fact, some self-reported scales that can measure
creative ideation assess many different types of
ideational behavior, while non-self-reported mea-
sures, such as batteries and experiments, frequently
report specific expressions and focus on limited
types of creative ideation (Runco et al., 2001). Yet
self-reported inventories also have their limitations,
since they are assessing participants’ beliefs about
their behavior, rather than behaviors themselves.
According to previous research, creative idea-
tion can predict academic performance, especially
in specific domains, such as open problem solving
or creative writing (Asha, 1980; Bentley, 1966;
Kuncel et al., 2004; Runco, 1992). The Munich
Model of Giftedness also confirms that high levels
of creativity and creative ideation are common
traits among gifted students (Heller, Perleth, &
Lim, 2005).
Additionally, motivation has been frequently
shown to be positively correlated to both academic
performance and creative ideation. For example, crea-
tive individuals who are high achievers also tend to be
highly motivated (Amabile, 1996; Bergendahl,
Magnusson, & Bjork, 2015; Kusurkar et al., 2013).
Still, even if motivation is a common space between
creativity and academic achievement, there is lack of
research evincing that academically talented students
are also creative (Amabile, 1985, 1996).
Things are complicated when examining the spe-
cific relationship between high academic achieve-
ment and creativity, a relationship defined
4 D. ZBAINOS AND V. BELOYIANNI
primarily by the prevailing ideologies in education
policy, the organizational structure of schools, and
other sociocultural factors (Davies et al., 2013). In
fact, many studies have established that creativity
influences academic achievement, since specific
creative abilities such as flexibility and elaboration,
which are crucial for problem solving, may enhance
success in academic settings (e.g., Ai, 1999; Anwar,
Shamim-ur-Rasool, & Haq, 2012; Naderi, Abdullah,
Aizan, Sharir, & Kumar, 2010; Nami, Marsooli, &
Ashouri, 2014). However, a similar number of stu-
dies revealed a nonsignificant negative correlation
between creativity and academic achievement (e.g.,
Edwards & Tyler, 1965; Olatoye, Akintunde, &
Ogunsanya, 2010; Wallach & Kogan, 1965;
Yamamoto & Chimbidis, 1966).
In this regard, Niu and Sternberg (2003) argued
that some environmental and cultural factors may
affect the relationship between the two variables.
This indicates that creativity may not be assessed
as an academic qualification in some cultural and
educational contexts and, therefore, is not pro-
moted systematically as a specific objective of cur-
ricula. Nevertheless, even in contexts where
creativity is a common trait among high achievers,
such as in Asian countries, the exact relationship
between creative ideation and academic perfor-
mance is neither clear nor linear (Anwar et al.,
2012). Furthermore, we should not ignore the
fact that highly creative students may be under-
achieving (Kim, 2008; Whitmore, 1980), as they
frequently experience difficulties in traditional
school environments (Amabile, 1989).
Method
Participants
The sampling procedure commenced with forma-
tive letters being sent to various Greek Regional
Education Authorities during academic year
2014–2015. These letters were subsequently dis-
tributed to school principals informing them of
the objectives of the research and inviting them
to forward a request to potential participants with
similar demographic profiles from each of the
three categories of students required for this
research: flag bearers, attendants, and regular
students.
To ensure that students could participate in the
research on only one occasion, each received
a personal disposable password to access the ques-
tionnaire online. All told, the response rate of the
target population was low, as only 287 of the 600
students (47,83%) who received a password filled
out the questionnaires.
The sample consisted of 287 Greek students from
both lower secondary (32.1%, N = 92) and upper
secondary schools (67.9%, N = 195). The mean age
of respondents was 15.9 years, and the gender divi-
sion was 64.5% female (N = 185) and 35.5% male
(N = 102). For the purpose of analysis, since the
study focused on differences between academically
talented students and their peers, participants were
divided into three subgroups: (1) flag bearers, (2)
attendants, and (3) regular students.
In particular, flag bearers constitute 25.4%
(N = 73) of the sample, attendants 36.5%
(N = 105), and regular students, who also constituted
the control group for this study, accounted for 38%
(N = 109). According to their place of residence,
26.5% (Ν = 76) of the students were living in the
larger urban areas, 45.6% (Ν = 131) in smaller towns,
and 9.1% (Ν = 26) in semi-rural locations. Only
18.8% (Ν = 54) of the sample were living in rural
communities.
Instruments
Creative ideation
In order to assess creative ideation, the sample
filled out the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale
(RIBS) (Runco et al., 2001), a self-reported inven-
tory that contains 23 items (a = .93) on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = very often). All
reported Cronbach’s alphas have been estimated
for the sample of the current study.
Motivated strategies for learning
Both motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning
strategies were assessed by adapting the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ;
Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). This is a self-reported
inventory of 44 items divided into two subscales,
each of them examining different aspects of moti-
vated learning strategies. Specifically, the subscale of
“Motivational beliefs” examines (1) self-efficacy
(nine items; a = .95), (2) intrinsic value (nine items;
 GIFTED AND TALENTED INTERNATIONAL 5

a = .92), and (3) test anxiety (four items; a = .87), efficacy, F(2, 284) = 24.98, p < .01, η2 = .15, and on
whereas “Self-regulated learning strategies” assesses intrinsic value, F(2, 284) = 22.36, p < .01, η2 = .14. In
(4) cognitive strategies use (13 items; a = .89) and (5) order to investigate the source of the main effects,
self-regulation (nine items; a = .83). Students were Bonferroni’s post hoc tests for multiple comparisons
instructed to respond to the items on a 7-point Likert were performed at the .05 significance level. These
scale (1 = not at all true of me to 7 = very true of me). results demonstrated that in relation to their self-
Cronbach’s alphas reported above have been esti- efficacy and intrinsic value, there were significant
mated for the sample of the present study. differences between regular students and attendants
Furthermore, academic performance was mea- and between regular students and flag bearers. Thus
sured by the school grades each participant there was no significant difference between flag
received in the academic year prior to this research bearers and attendants (see Table 2).
commencing. Afterwards, data were further analyzed to
investigate possible differences between sub-
groups concerning their self-regulated learning
Results strategies. The analysis of variances demonstrated
a significant effect of subgroups on cognitive
Initial statistics
strategy use, F(2, 284) = 21.73, p < .01, η2 = .13,
Initially, in order to examine the potential differ- and self-regulation, F(2, 284) = 29.20, p < .01,
ences in academic achievement between the three η2 = .17. Bonferroni’s post hoc test for multiple
subgroups of the sample, the last school grades of comparisons was performed at the .05 signifi-
the students were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 soft- cance level and revealed that there was no signif-
ware. The results, as presented in Table 1, revealed icant difference between flag bearers and
that there were statistically significant differences attendants, both in terms of cognitive strategy
between each subgroups’ mean scores, as deter- use and self-regulation (see Table 3), whereas
mined by 1-way ANOVA, F(2, 284) = 54.22, p there were significant differences between both
< .01, η2 = .27. Levene’s test of homogeneity of these groups and students without distinction.
variances showed that the variances between the
subgroups were unequal, F(2, 284) = 43.86, p < .01.
Table 2. Descriptives of subgroups’ motivational beliefs.
Bonferroni’s test for post hoc comparisons demon-
95% CI
strated that flag bearers and attendants differed Sub Groups N M SD SE LB UB
significantly to regular students, but not to each Self-efficacy Regular students 109 4.12a 1.37 .13 3.86 4.38
other. Therefore, these results indicated that there Attendants 105 5.14b 1.15 .11 4.92 5.36
Flag bearers 73 5.18b .96 .11 4.95 5.40
was one group of academically talented students,
Total 287 4.77a 1.30 .08 4.61 4.91
which includes both the flag bearers and atten- Intrinsic value Regular students 109 4.14a 1.19 .11 3.92 4.37
dants, and another group of ordinary achievers, Attendants 105 4.95b 1.00 .09 4.76 5.15
Flag bearers 73 5.11b 1.02 .11 4.87 5.35
comprising the regular students. Total 287 4.70a 1.17 .07 4.55 4.82
Further analysis investigated whether the three Test anxiety Regular students 109 3.56 1.60 .15 3.25 3.86
subgroups varied in terms of their motivational Attendants 105 3.60 1.55 .15 3.30 3.90
Flag bearers 73 3.34 1.50 .17 2.99 3.70
beliefs. Total 287 3.52 1.57 .09 3.34 3.70
In general, the analysis of variances demonstrated Note: Means with the same superscripts are significantly different from
that the subgroups had a significant effect on self- each other.

Table 1. Descriptives of subgroups’ academic achievement.

95% CI
Sub Groups N M SD SE LB UB
Academic Achievement Regular students 109 16.69ab 2.35 .22 16.24 17.13
Attendants 105 18.68ac 1.31 .13 18.43 18.94
Flag bearers 73 19.12bc 1.08 .13 18.86 19.37
Total 287 18.04 2.04 .12 17.80 18.27
Note: Means with the same superscripts are significantly different from each other.
6 D. ZBAINOS AND V. BELOYIANNI

Table 3. Descriptives of subgroups’ self-regulated learning Table 5. Pearson’s correlation between motivational beliefs,
strategies. self-regulated learning strategies, creative ideation, and aca-
95% CI demic achievement.
Sub Groups N M SD SE LB UB Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cognitive strategy Regular 109 4.27a 1.18 .11 4.04 4.50 1. Self-efficacy 1.00
use students 2. Intrinsic .78** 1.00
Attendants 105 5.09b .93 .09 4.91 5.27 value
Flag bearers 73 5.11b .90 .10 4.89 5.32 3. Test anxiety .03 .07 1.00
Total 287 4.79a 1.10 .06 4.66 4.91 4. Cognitive .75** .78** .12* 1.00
Self- regulation Regular 109 3.76a 1.12 .10 3.55 3.98 Strategy Use
students 5. Self- .71** .74** .04 .77** 1.00
Attendants 105 4.71b .96 .09 4.52 4.90 regulation
Flag bearers 73 4.78b 1.03 .12 4.53 5.02 6. Creative .32** .28** .01 .32** .17** 1.00
Total 287 4.37a 1.15 .07 4.27 4.51 ideation
7. Academic .70** .63** .00 .63** .61** .18** 1.00
Note: Means with the same superscripts are significantly different from
Achievement
each other.
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.

Potential differences between the mean scores of
each subgroups’ creative ideation were also exam-
ined. The analysis of variance demonstrated
a significant effect of the subgroups on ideation,
F(2, 284) = 6.28, p < .01, η2 = .04. Using
Bonferroni’s test at the .05 significance level and
making multiple comparisons revealed significant
differences between regular students and both
attendants and flag bearers in relation to creative
ideation, but there were no significant differences
between flag bearers and attendants (see Table 4).
Correlations
In order to examine the inter-relationships among
self-regulated learning strategies, motivational
beliefs, creative ideation, and academic perfor-
mance of respondents, the collected data were
further investigated via Pearson’s r correlations
and multiple regressions. As seen in Table 5,
there were significant positive correlations among
all factors, except test anxiety, which was found to
be significantly and positively correlated only with
cognitive strategy use. Besides this, it is notable
that the rest of the motivational beliefs and self-
Table 4. Descriptives of subgroups’ creative ideation.
95% CI
Sub Groups N M SD SE LB UB
Creative Regular 109 2.96a .80 .07 2.81 3.11
ideation students
Attendants 105 3.26b .71 .07 3.12 3.40
Flag bearers 73 3.28b .58 .06 3.15 3.42
Total 287 3.15 .73 .04 3.07 3.24
Note: Means with the same superscripts are significantly different from
each other.
regulation strategies appeared to be highly corre-
lated with each other in addition to academic
achievement, while self-reported ideation was low
or remotely correlated with the other factors. This
indicated that academic performance tends to
relate more with motivational and self-regulating
abilities than creative ideation, with which there is
little correlation.
Regression analysis
Motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning, crea-
tive ideation, and academic achievement were
found to be inter-correlated. Specifically, intrinsic
value, self-efficacy, cognitive strategy use, and self-
regulation were shown to be strongly correlated
with academic achievement, while there was a low
correlation between creative ideation and respon-
dents’ academic achievement. In this respect, the
relationships mentioned above were further ana-
lyzed to examine whether students’ perception of
their motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning
strategies, and creative ideation could predict stu-
dents’ academic achievement.
A series of multiple regression analyses indi-
cated that self-efficacy can be used to explain the
extent of variation in academic performance in the
total sample. On the other hand, ideation was
found to predict a small percentage of variance
in academic performance, but only for regular
students. Moreover, in relation to self-regulation,
intrinsic value and cognitive strategy use, regres-
sion was found to be insignificant, which suggests
that variance of these factors cannot predict any
differences in academic performance (see Table 6).
 GIFTED AND TALENTED INTERNATIONAL 7

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for variables predicting variance of academic performance of regular students
subgroups’ academic achievement. (sr2 = .26, p < .01), 29% of variance for attendants
Total (N = 287)
(sr2 = .29, p < .01), and 34% for flag bearers (sr2 = .34,
Dependent Predicting SE
Sub Groups Variable variables B B Β p = .01). While ideation was found to negatively
Regular Academic Self-efficacy .86 .84 .50** explain 13% of academic performance’s variation for
students Achievement Intrinsic value .33 .26 .17 regular students (sr2 = −.13, p = .05), it appears to have
(N = 109) Cognitive .37 .26 .19
strategy use no significant predicting effect on the other sub-
Self-regulation −.05 .23 −.03 groups’ academic grades. This suggests that high self-
Creative −.46 .22 −.15* efficacy tends to be a common trait among academi-
ideation
R2 = .52 cally talented and high-achieving students. On the
F = 20.19** other hand, creative ideation appears to negatively
Attendants Self-efficacy .49 .13 .43**
(N = 105) Intrinsic value .82 .16 .06 affect academic performance, but this negative effect
Cognitive .10 .18 .08 was reduced for low and moderate achievers. This
strategy use indicates that ideation may be an underappreciated
Self-regulation .22 .17 .16
Creative −.25 .15 −.13 quality when rating students’ achievement.
ideation The next research question related to whether
R2 = .37
F = 11.38** or not motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning,
Flag bearers Self-efficacy .56 .16 .50** and academic achievement explain students’ crea-
(N = 73) Intrinsic value −.12 .16 −.12 tive ideation. For a deeper investigation of the
Cognitive .33 .20 .28
strategy use relationships between participants’ motivational
Self-regulation −.05 .17 −.04 beliefs, self-regulated learning strategies, academic
Creative −.08 .20 −.04
ideation
achievement, and ideation, a multiple regression
R2 = .29 analysis was performed with ideation as the depen-
F = 5.88** dent variable (see Table 7).
Total Self-efficacy .74 .11 .47**
(N = 287) Intrinsic value .16 .13 .09 On the complete sample, squared semi-partial
Cognitive .29 .14 .16* correlations indicated that academic self-efficacy
strategy use
Self-regulation .16 .13 .09
can explain 16% of creative ideation’s variation
Creative −.18 .12 −.07 (sr2 = .16, p < .01), cognitive strategy use can predict
ideation 19% (sr2 = −.19, p = .001), and self-regulated learning
R2 = .53
F = 65.70** explains approximately17% (sr2 = .17, p < .01).
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01. Furthermore, to see if the model of influences was
akin for all three subgroups, the collected data were
further analyzed. The analysis for each of the sub-
All prediction models were statistically significant groups revealed that cognitive strategy use can explain
in Table 6. To investigate whether the models of effects a similar percentage of variance of ideation of 21% for
were analogous for flag bearers, attendants, and reg- regular students (sr2 = −.21, p < .05) and attendants
ular students, we calculated the specific percentage of (sr2 = −.21, p < .05), but explains only 5% for flag
variation of academic performance. Each of the sig- bearers (sr2 = −.05, p < .05). Other variables have
nificantly predicting variables can be explained by significant predictive strength only for the subgroup
performing squared semi-partial correlations (sr2). of regular students. Namely, academic self-efficacy
The regression analysis revealed that self- was found to predict 28% of variance of ideation
efficacy predicted 27% of variance in academic (sr2 = .28, p = .001), self-regulation 22% (sr2 = −.22, p
performance (sr2 = .27, p < .01), while cognitive < .05) and academic achievement 17% (sr2 = .17,
strategy use explained only 8% of the total sample p < .05).
(sr2 = .08, p < .05).
Therefore, self-efficacy was found to be the stron-
Discussion
ger predictor of academic performance, with similar
predictive strength for all three subgroups. Namely, As discussed in the Results section, flag bearers and
self-efficacy appeared able to explain a 26% of attendants appeared not to differ in any variables
8 D. ZBAINOS AND V. BELOYIANNI

Table 7. Multiple regression analysis for variables predicting in terms of their motivational beliefs, self-regulated
subgroups’ creative ideation. learning strategies, and creative ideation. However,
Total (N = 287)
it is worth noting that all three groups displayed no
Dependent Predicting
Sub Groups Variable variables B SE B Β significant differences in their test anxiety. Previous
Regular Creative Self-efficacy .32 .10 .57** research has also identified that academically
Students ideation Intrinsic value −.04 .12 −.06 talented students tend to display higher motivation
(N = 109) Cognitive .27 .11 .35*
strategy use and self-regulated strategies use (e.g., Broadbent &
Self-regulation −.25 .10 −.34* Poon, 2015; McClelland & Cameron, 2011; Pintrich
Academic −.09 .04 −.25*
Achievement
& DeGroot, 1990), while there has been conflicting
R2 = .20 findings on the creativity of academically talented
F = 5.71** students (Amabile, 1985, 1996). Findings from this
Attendants Self-efficacy .04 .09 .06
(N = 105) Intrinsic value .09 .11 .12 study and previous literature indicated that motiva-
Cognitive .24 .12 .31* tional beliefs, self-regulated learning, and creative
strategy use ideation were factors broadly recognized as critical
Self-regulation −.10 .11 −.13
Academic −.11 .07 −.20 for academic achievement (e.g., Amabile, 1996;
Achievement Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1993).
R2 = .07
F = 2.30* Further examination of the relationships between
Flag bearers Self-efficacy .15 .11 .25 motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning strate-
(N = 73) Intrinsic value .07 .10 .13 gies, creative ideation, and academic achievement
Cognitive .16 .12 .25
strategy use revealed a series of positive correlations among all
Self-regulation −.24 .10 −.44* variables, with the exception of test anxiety, which
Academic −.03 .08 −.06
Achievement was found to have a weak positive correlation with
R2 = .04 cognitive strategy use only. Generally, these results
F = 1.44 verify the findings of the established literature,
Total Self-efficacy .16 .06 .29**
(N = 287) Intrinsic value .05 .06 .08 which accepts that creativity, motivation, and self-
Cognitive .23 .07 .35** regulation for learning are related to academic suc-
strategy use
Self-regulation −.19 .06 −.29**
cess (e.g. Asha, 1980; Kuncel et al., 2004; Runco,
Academic −.04 .03 −.12 1992). The insignificant relationship found between
Achievement academic achievement and test anxiety appears to
R2 = .14
F = 10.56** be contrary to previous research, according to
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01. which test anxiety is understood as an affective
component that is slightly, but significantly, related
to academic performance (Metallidou & Vlachou,
examined, which indicated that they tend to behave, 2007; Pintrich et al., 1993).
more or less, as a unified group of academically Moreover, the complicated relationship between
talented students. The results did not totally con- test anxiety and cognitive strategy use has been
firm the academic classification, since there were no contested in previous research (e.g., Bugge, 1977;
statistically significant differences between all sub- Entwistle, 1988; Kondo, 1997). As a result,
groups’ means of academic performance. In this Entwistle (1988) posited that highly anxious stu-
regard, the classification of academically talented dents tend to display increased need for structure
students as flag bearers and attendants appears to and often seek learning strategies and routines to
serve traditional purposes. However, regular stu- improve their performance. However, in practice,
dents were found to differ significantly from both these students eventually adopt a surface approach
flag bearers and attendants in terms of their aca- to cognitive strategy use.
demic achievement. Further analysis revealed that Previous research has also suggested that crea-
academic performance was not the only factor on tive ideation is a predictor of a specific domains of
which academically talented students and regular academic performance (e.g., Asha, 1980; Kuncel
students were found to differ. High achievers and et al., 2004; Runco, 1992). Nevertheless, as findings
regular students also appeared to differ significantly in the literature are at variance with one another,

more research into the relationship between aca-
demic success and creativity is needed (Amabile,
1985, 1996).
Further examination of the data revealed that
creative ideation and academic performance may
be related in various ways. In particular, self-
perception of creative ideation was found to nega-
tively affect the academic performance of each
group, with academically talented students least
likely to be affected.
In this respect, cognitive strategy use and self-
regulated learning were found to negatively predict
creative ideation. Taking into account that self-
regulated strategies were found to a larger extent
in high achievers, it could be assumed that acade-
mically talented students of the present sample may
tend to consider themselves less creative. This nega-
tive relationship could possibly be explained as the
effect of specific cultural contexts and educational
systems on students. According to Mclnerney
(2008), some educational systems promote self-
regulated learning as conformity to norms, engage-
ment to more conventional models of thinking, less
experimentation, and more frequent avoidance of
original thinking. In this regard, the Greek educa-
tional system may have affected highly self-
regulated learners to have a low perception of
their creative ideation. However, this assumption
requires further investigation and cannot be sup-
ported by the present study.
Academic self-efficacy was also found to be
a crucial and direct predictor of academic success
that uniformly affects low, moderate achieving,
and academically talented students. As an expec-
tancy component involving students’ perceptions
and beliefs about their capacity to accomplish
tasks and reach goals, academic self-efficacy has
been consistently studied as a variable able to
explain much about academic performance
(Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich et al., 1993).
Limitations
There are certain limitations of this study that
restrict the extent to which the findings can be
generalized. First, since the sample for this research
was selected by convenience, (i.e., selection was
based on accessibility and proximity to the
researchers), the results cannot be generalized.
GIFTED AND TALENTED INTERNATIONAL 9
Moreover, this research was based on self-reported
instruments that have been frequently found to
suffer from various biases, such as social desirability
bias, which may affect the accuracy of participants’
responses. Additionally, the cross-sectional data
collection prevented causal inferences regarding
the relationship between creative ideation and aca-
demic achievement for Greek secondary students.
Finally, in the absence of other formal methods
to identify academically talented students in Greek
secondary education, we defined academically stu-
dents in terms of their relative academic achieve-
ment, which placed them to the top 10% compared
to their peers. Talent identification would be more
valid if it was supported by standardized testing.
Considering these limitations, further investiga-
tion into the wider population of students using
a variety of research methods and instruments
may be a better means to fully understand the
psychological background of academically talented
students.
Conclusion and recommendations
To conclude, high academic performance reflects
higher academic self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation
and self-regulation, more frequent use of cognitive
strategies, and rare use of creative ideation, among
other factors. Specifically, the findings suggest that
academic self-efficacy exerts a critical motivational
influence on students’ academic achievement. This
suggests that self-belief has a vital role in academic
success. In this regard, psycho-educational strate-
gies for students that promote the ability to suc-
ceed should be included in teaching practice to
increase academic potential. For instance, model-
ing, verbal persuasion, goal setting, and frequent
performance feedback have been found to increase
self-efficacy and self-regulation in academic tasks
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007).
As mentioned above, even if creativity is a desired
skill for the 21st century, creative ideation was found
not to significantly predict academic achievement in
secondary school. Few studies have reported
a relationship between academic achievement and
creativity. This indicates that in Greek secondary
schools, teachers need to restrict students’ creative
ideation in order to facilitate their academic achieve-
ment, as creative ideation is rated as a non-
10 D. ZBAINOS AND V. BELOYIANNI
appreciated quality in Greek educational system,
even if it holds a high position in the hierarchy of
aims in school curricula. On the other hand, restrict-
ing creativity in school is impractical, as it is cur-
rently a highly valued skill for social, personal, and
economic development. Under this scope, cultivat-
ing creative skills and innovation has to be promoted
within the overall educational process. In this regard,
teachers have to be trained to include educational
methods and strategies that contribute to cultivating
a school environment that respects, promotes, and
rewards creativity as a value.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dimitrios Zbainos is an Assistant Professor in Harokopio
University. He graduated the Pedagogic department of
University of Thrace and continued his studies at a postgraduate
level at the Institute of education, University of London,
(Diploma in Education, M.A. in Psychology of Education)
where he was awarded a PhD. He has taught in Primary
Schools, in the Department of Psychology of the University of
Crete, and in postgraduate courses in the School of Philosophy of
University of Athens. His articles have been published in Greek
and international journals and he has participated in Greek and
international conferences. His research interests include themes
in Psychology of Education, Creativity, Motivation, Giftedness,
Individual Differences, Assessment in Education and Educational
Curricula. He is the secretary of the International Association for
Cognitive Education and Psychology and member to the execu-
tive committee of the Hellenic Association of Educational
Assessment.
Vassiliki Beloyianni is a doctorate student in Harokopio
University of Athens. She graduated the Classics department
of University of Peloponnese and also holds a Diploma in
Special Education and Psychometric Assessment (University
of Thessaly) and a Master’s degree in Educational Psychology
and Practice (Harokopio University of Athens). She is currently
working as a special education teacher. Her research interests
span both special education and educational psychology.
References
Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: Αn
investigation of gender differences. Creativity Research
Journal, 12(4), 329–337. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11
Allen, J. D. (2005). Grades as valid measures of academic
achievement of classroom learning. Thc, 78(5), 218–223.
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of
motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393–399.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.393
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing
a lifetime of creativity. Williston, VT: Crown House.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Anwar, M. N., Shamim-ur-Rasool, S., & Haq, R. (2012). A
comparison of creative thinking abilities of high and low
achievers secondary school students. International
Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 1(1), 1–6.
Anwar, M. N., Shamim-ur-Rasool, S., & Haq, R. (2012).
A comparison of creative thinking abilities of high and
low achievers secondary school students. International
Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 1(1), 1–6.
Asha, C. B. (1980). Creativity and academic achievement
among secondary school children. Asian Journal of
Psychology and Education, 6, 1–4.
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality: A critical review of scattered literature.
Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 132
(4), 355–429. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
Bentley, J. C. (1966). Creativity and academic achievement.
Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 269–272.
doi:10.1080/00220671.1966.10883353
Bergendahl, M., Magnusson, M., & Bjork, J. (2015). Ideation
high performers: A study of motivational factors.
Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 361–368. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2015.1088266
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning
strategies and academic achievement in online higher edu-
cation learning environments: A systematic review. The
Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2015.04.007
Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In
J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–32). New York, NY:
Springer Science & Business Media LLC.
Bugge, I. D. (1977). The use of cognitive strategies to attenu-
ate test anxiety: Attribution of normality self-instructions
and distraction. Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers.
Paper 6014.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas.
London, UK: Routledge.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., &
Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education.
A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8,
80–91. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
Edwards, M. P., & Tyler, L. E. (1965). Intelligence, creativity,
and achievement in a nonselective public junior high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 96–99.
Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivation and learning strategies: Effective
learning. Educational and Child Psychology, 5(3), 5–20.
Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and crea-
tive ideation. Neuroscience &Biobehavioral Reviews, 44,
111–123. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002

Fink, A., Benedek, M., Grabner, R. H., Staudt, B., &
Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Creativity meets neuroscience:
Experimental tasks for the neuroscientific study of crea-
tive thinking. Methods, 42(1), 68–76. doi:10.1016/j.
ymeth.2006.12.001
Gagné, F. (2001). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT
as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2),
119–147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT
as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2),
119–147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682
Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents. The DMGT as
a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp.
98–119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner
resources for school performance: Motivational mediators of
children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 508–517. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508
Hellenic Statistical Authority. (2015). Living Conditions in
Greece. Athens, GR: Ministry of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.minedu.gov.gr/publications/docs2016/
27-01-16_elstat%CE%9D%CE%95%CE%9F.pdf
Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich
model of giftedness designed to identify and promote
gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson
(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 147–170).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, K. H. (2008). Underachievement and creativity: Are
gifted underachievers highly creative? Creativity Research
Journal, 20(2), 234–242. doi:10.1080/10400410802060232
Kondo, D. S. (1997). Strategies for coping with test anxiety.
Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 10(2), 203–215. doi:10.1080/
10615809708249301
Kosnin, J. M. (2007). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement in Malaysian undergraduates. International
Education Journal, 8(1), 221–228.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories
of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic
performance, career potential, creativity, and job perfor-
mance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148–161.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148
Kusurkar, R. A., Ten Cate, T. J., Vos, C. M., Westers, P., &
Croiset, G. (2013). How Motivation affects academic per-
formance: A structural equation modelling analysis.
Advances in Health Science Education, 18(1), 57–69.
doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3
Lemos, M., & Verissimo, L. (2013). The relationships between
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and achievement,
along elementary school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 112, 930–938. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1251
Leung, K., & Wang, J. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of
creativity. In C. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The
GIFTED AND TALENTED INTERNATIONAL 11
Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation and entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 245–266). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Markou, A., & Philippou, G. (2005). Motivational beliefs, self-
regulated learning and mathematical problem solving. In
H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th
conference of the international group for the psychology of
mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 297–304). Melbourne,
Australia: PME.
McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. E. (2011). Self-regulation
and academic achievement in elementary school children.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 133,
29–44. doi:10.1002/cd.302
Mclnerney, D. M. (2008). The motivational roles of cultural
differences and cultural identity in self-regulated learning.
In D. H. Schunk & B. Zimmermann (Eds.), Motivation and
self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp.
369–399). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Metallidou, P., & Vlachou, A. (2007). Motivational beliefs, cogni-
tive engagement, and achievement in language and mathe-
matics in elementary school children. International Journal of
Psychology, 42(1), 2–15. doi:10.1080/00207590500411179
Naderi, H., Abdullah, R., Aizan, T. H., Sharir, J., & Kumar, V.
(2010). Relationship between creativity and academic
achievement: A study of gender differences. Journal of
American Science, 6(1), 181–190.
Nami, Y., Marsooli, H., & Ashouri, M. (2014). The relation-
ship between creativity and academic achievement.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 36–39.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.652
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Social and school influ-
ences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology
in the Schools, 40(1), 103–114. doi:10.1002/pits.10072
O’Connor, E. J., Chassie, M. B., & Walther, F. (1980).
Expended effort and academic performance. Teaching of
Psychology, 7, 231–233. doi:10.1207/s15328023top0704_10
Olatoye, R. A., Akintunde, S. O., & Ogunsanya, E. A. (2010).
Relationship between creativity and academic achievement
of business administration students in south western poly-
technics, Nigeria. African Research Review, 4(3), 134–149.
doi:10.4314/afrrev.v4i3.60164
Pintrich, P. R. (1988). A process-oriented view of student
motivation and cognition. In J. S. Stark & L. Mets (Eds.),
Improving teaching and learning through research. New
directions for institutional research (Vol. 57, pp. 55–70).
Greenwich, CT: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student
motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In
C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement: Vol. 6. Motivation enhancing environments
(pp. 117–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and
self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),
33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold
conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and class-
room contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.
12 D. ZBAINOS AND V. BELOYIANNI
Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. doi:10.3102/
00346543063002167
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to
the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M. A. (1992). Children’s divergent thinking and crea-
tive ideation. Developmental Review, 12(3), 233–264.
doi:10.1016/0273-2297(92)90010-Y
Runco, M. A., & Basadur, M. (1993). Assessing ideational and
evaluative skills and creative styles and attitudes. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 2, 166–173. doi:10.1111/
caim.1993.2.issue-3
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition
of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and
psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior.
Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393–400. doi:10.1207/
S15326934CRJ1334_16
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing
children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and
writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
23, 7–25. doi:10.1080/10573560600837578
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M.,
Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., … Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing
creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliabil-
ity and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85. doi:10.1037/
1931-3896.2.2.68
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1
801_10
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativ-
ity. prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–16). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Vouyoukas, C. (2007). An analysis of equality, legislation,
attitudes and values in education. The case of Greece.
Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 12(2),
115–134.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Models of thinking in
young children. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ward, Α., Stoker, H. W., & Murray-Ward, M. (1996).
Achievement and ability tests - definition of the domain.
Educational Measurement, 2, 2–5.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachie-
vement. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Yamamoto, K., & Chimbidis, M. E. (1966). Achievement,
intelligence, and creative thinking in fifth grade children:
A correlational study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 12,
233–241.