PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(5) 257-272

Investigation of Science Project Performances of Gifted and Talented Students

Ezgi Sağat & Fazilet Karakuş

pp. 257 - 272   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.17   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1905-15-0007

Published online: October 16, 2019  |   Number of Views: 22  |  Number of Download: 46


Abstract

The purpose of the study is to analyze gifted and talented students’ project performances and views about them.  In the study, explanatory sequential design, which is one of the mixed method research designs, was applied. In the quantitative phase of the study, project performances of the students were identified, while, in the qualitative phase, their views on their performances were determined. The study group consisted of the students who were enrolled in the Support Program at a Science and Arts Center during the 2017-2018 education year. According to quantitative findings, during the project preparation process, the students exhibit “fairly good” performance in producing ideas from science-related life, producing ideas for their needs and creating hypothesis about the problem. In qualitative findings, the students are seen to have no difficulty in producing ideas, as a result of which they can immediately produce ideas on their own. As regards to the project process and project content, they are observed to show “fairly good” performance in self-deciding on the sources and materials to be used for testing the hypothesis and sharing the research findings with the teacher and class while showing “satisfactory” performance in testing the hypothesis. The students stated that they did research, tested hypothesis and made inferences for hypothesis testing. They performed “fairly good” in using fluent and clear language in presentation, making the presentation within the given time and making eye contact with the audience. They expressed their opinion that they made an effective presentation as well as they were not satisfied with the presentation.

Keywords: Gifted and talented students, project approach, science.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Sagat, E. & Karakus, F. (2019). Investigation of Science Project Performances of Gifted and Talented Students . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), 257-272. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.17

Harvard
Sagat, E. and Karakus, F. (2019). Investigation of Science Project Performances of Gifted and Talented Students . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), pp. 257-272.

Chicago 16th edition
Sagat, Ezgi and Fazilet Karakus (2019). "Investigation of Science Project Performances of Gifted and Talented Students ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (5):257-272. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.17.

References
  1. Ataman, A. (2009). Üstün zekalılar ve üstün yetenekliler [Gifted and Talented]. Retrieved from https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/aos/kitap/IOLTP/1267/unite11.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baykoç, N. (2014). Üstün; akıl, zeka, deha, yetenek, dâhiler-savantlar gelişimleri ve eğitimleri [Gifted: Developments and trainings of mind, intelligence, genius, talent, genius-savant]. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boondee, V., Kidrakarn, P., & Sa-Ngiamvibool, W. (2011). A learning and teaching model using Project-based learning on the WEB to promote cooperative learning. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(3), 498-506. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruning, R. H., Gregory, J. S., & Norby,M.M. (2014). Bilişsel psikoloji ve öğretim [Cognitive psychology and teaching]. (Çev: Ed: Z. N. Ersözlü ve Ülker), Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 122-131. [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. [Google Scholar]
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi  [Mixed method research design and execution](2nd  ed.) (Dede, Y., & Demir, S.B., Çev. Ed.). Anı: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  7. Çağlar, D. (2004). Üstün zekalı çocukların özellikleri [Characteristics of gifted children].  1. Türkiye üstün yetenekli çocuklar kongresi yayın dizisi seçilmiş makaleler kitabı, İstanbul Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları, 111-125. [Google Scholar]
  8. Davalos, R. A., & Haensly, P. A. (1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their  [Google Scholar]
  9. high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review, 19(4), 204-207. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed). USA: Allyn & Bacon [Google Scholar]
  11. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1984). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems. [Google Scholar]
  12. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & ve Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. Doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255 [Google Scholar]
  13. Heacox, D., & Cash, R. M. (2014). Differentiation for gifted learners going beyond the basics. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Landis R. J., Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Bıometrıcs, 33, 159-174. [Google Scholar]
  15. Loveridge, A., & Searle, J. (2009). The road to independent study. Retrieved from https://gifted.tki.org.nz/assets/Uploads/files/The-road-to-independent-study.pdf [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnsen-Harris, M. A. (1983). Surviving the budget crunch from an independent school  perspective. Roeper Review, 6, 79-81. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffit, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisiplinary learning. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Jung, H., Jun, W., & Gruenwald, L. (2001). A Design and implementation of web-based Project-based learning support systems. Retrieved from www.cs.ou.edu/ ~database/documents/jjg01. pdf. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jurisevic, M., Glazar, S. A., & Pucko C. R. (2008). Intrinsic motivation of pre-service primary school teacher for learning chemistry in relation to their  academic achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 87-107.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaplan-Sayı, A. (2018). Examining the view of participants’ about an enrichment program for disadvantaged gifted and talented. Turkish Studies, 13(4),749-770. [Google Scholar]
  21. Karakuş, F. (2010). Difficulties that families of gifted students face. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 127-144.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Kein, J. Taveras, S., Hope King, S. H., Comminate Curtis Bey, L., & Stripling, B. (2009). Project-based learning: Inspiring middle school students to engage in deep and active learning. Division of teaching and learning Office of curriculum, standards, and academic engagement. New York: NYC Department of Education.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Kingsley, R. F. (1986). “Digging” for understanding and signifiance: A high school enrichment model. Roeper Review, 9, 37-38.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Moltzen, R. (2004). Characteristic of gifted children, D. Mc Apline and R. Moltzen(eds). Gifted and Talent New Zealand Perpectives, (62-92), Palmerston North New Zealand: ERDC Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. NAGC (2014). Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards for Gifted and Talented Students, Position Statement,  [Google Scholar]
  26. https://ww.nagc.org./sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Common%20Core%20and%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf [Google Scholar]
  27. Newman, J. L., & Hubner, J. P. (2012). Designing challenging science experiences for high-ability learners  through partnerships with university professors. Gifted Child Today, 35(2), 102-115. [Google Scholar]
  28. NRC. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington:National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. NRC. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington:National Academies Press.  [Google Scholar]
  30. Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Öğrenme Psikolojisi, (Çev: Ed. M. Baloğlu). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları, 426-467.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Özarslan, M. (2018). The impact of biology project studies on the scientific attitudes of gifted and talented students. Erciyes Journal of Education, 2, 75-93. [Google Scholar]
  32. Özarslan, M., & Çetin, G. (2018). Effects of biology project studies on gifted and talented students’ motivation toward learning biology. Gifted Education International, 34(3), 205-221. [Google Scholar]
  33. Peterson, M. (1997). Skills to enhance problem-based learning. Medical Education Online, 2(3). [Google Scholar]
  34. Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., & Reis, S. M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working  with gifted students. The Elemantary School Journal, 82, 185-194. [Google Scholar]
  36. Smuty, J. & Von Fremd, S. E. (2004). Differentiating fort he young child. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Stanely, T. (2012). Project –Based Learning for Gifted Students: A Handbook fort he 21st-Century Classroom. Waco: Prufrock Press Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Stenberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1985). Cognitive development in the gifted and talented. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.): The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp.37-74). Washington, D. C. American Psychological Association.  [Google Scholar]
  39. Stewart, E. D. (1981). Learning  styles among gifted/talented students: Instructional tecnique preferences. Exceptional Children, 48, 134-138.  [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Tassel-Baska, J., Gallagher, S., Bailey, J., & Sher, B. (1993). Scientific experimentation. Gifted Child Today, 16(5), 42-46. [Google Scholar]
  41. Whitener, E. M. (1989). A meta-analytic review of the effect of learning on the interaction between prior achievement and instructional support. Review of Educational Research, 59, 65-86.  [Google Scholar]