 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 6 (Jun., 2015)
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 6 (Jun., 2015)
|
Academic Achievement
While the difference between the pre and post academic achievement test scores was significant in favor of the treatment group in the post test (z=-2.81, p<0.05), a similar result was not found in the control group (z=-1.782, p>0.05). This result can be attributed to the features of depth and complexity, which provided differentiation in the science and technology curriculum used by the treatment group.
Meaning is always context-bounded (Novak, 1998, p. 37). Although using knowledge at a high level of thinking is a part of intellectual ability, having a high level of mental ability does not necessarily lead to internalization in higher-level contexts (Perkins & Salomon, 1989). While taking the post test, the students in the control group might have had to (a) adapt to being confronted with new conditions and (b) reorganize their existing knowledge accordingly (Attewell, 1992; Haskell, 2001, p. 24; Kogut & Zander, 1992). In other words, the students in the control group might have had difficulty transferring their knowledge from traditional contexts to more deep and complex contexts while taking the post test. This conclusion is supported by findings by Carr, Alexander, Schwanenflugel (1996, p. 212) and van Merrienboer, Kester, Paas (2006, p. 343).
Scientific Process Skills
Carson (2004, p. 76-77) suggested that there is a significant difference between making science process skills ready for use by students by the teacher making an announcement and telling students to be prepared to figure out themselves which skills should be used under which conditions. This difference can be attributed to the effect of depth on learning (Novak & Gowin, 1984, p. 56-58). A learning environment unsupported by the component of depth might have negatively affected the success of the gifted students in the control group.
Complexity involves a simultaneous process of finding relations across components, i.e., parts or elements of knowledge that seemed unrelated before (Clark, 2008; Egan, 2010; Jensen & Nickelsen, 2008; Salmon, 1998; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). It follows that, unless the construct of complexity is included in a learning environment, there is a possibility that skills are taught without focusing on the relations among them. As a consequence of giving less emphasis to such relations in the general science curriculum, it might be concluded that the gifted students in the control group did not succeed as much as the gifted students in the treatment group in terms of scientific process skills.
Attitude toward Science
Dodds’ (2010) research findings established an explanation for why depth and complexity can positively affect the attitude toward science of students in the treatment group. Based on this research, it was hypothesized that there would not be a statistically significant difference in this study between the pre and post attitude scores of the control group in favor of the post test. The result obtained from the control group was contrary to the hypothesis of this study (z=-2.53, p<0.05). To develop an explanation for this discrepancy, the attitude scores of the control group were reviewed. It was found that 5 of 9 participants in the control group received the highest possible score (+20).
This unusual score distribution might have stemmed from a variable that could not be controlled. Prior to implementation of the research study, the students were divided into two groups, and the two classes were housed in the same building of the project school. Although their classrooms were located on different floors of the building, the students in the control group interacted with those in the treatment group during break times. The students in the control group recognized that the activities performed by the treatment group differed from theirs. Thereupon, some of the students in the control group wanted to transfer to the treatment group, but their requests were denied.
Rejection of these students in the control group may have created feelings of frustration over time. Assuming that these students wanted to express a reaction to the deprivation of favorable opportunities, they may have intentionally responded extremely happier than the way they normally feel (in an opposite way) when taking the attitude post test. As a result, the study does not provide adequate information to develop the conclusion that the treatment was either effective or ineffective at improving the attitude of these gifted students toward science education.The explanation above calls into question how the interaction effect did not spread to the participants’ performances on the academic achievement test and scientific process skills test. The answer mostly lies in the dissimilarity between scales and tests in terms of their measuring approaches. In the attitude scale, students were asked to express their feelings towards science education by letting them select an answer from the choices. In comparison with the scale, the tests used in this study had only one correct answer among the choices, and the students needed to solve questions accurately to succeed. The motivation to perform well while solving questions on the academic achievement and scientific process skills tests might have disappeared when the attitude scale was administered. This factor, the loss of achievement motivation, might have worked as a stimulant for the students in the control group to exhibit their reactions to being treated differently on the attitude scale.
Limitations and Recommendations
This research study demonstrates the importance of conceptualizing depth and complexity and developing ways to put these constructs into practice in the education of gifted students. The findings indicate the significance of depth and complexity in the educational needs of gifted students. Nevertheless, there was only one primary school for gifted students in the country, and the small number of gifted students in this school may have limited the ability to create different groups. Consequently, this case resulted in methodological limitations such as the groups could not be kept socially distant and therefore interacted with one another during the study. In addition, students are divided into two classes, the classes had to be placed at the same time in order not to conflict schedule.
From the time this project school founded at 2002, the place became a research field for master and doctorate students in Istanbul. That is to say, 5th grade students have familiarity of research activities for five years. So the possibility that statistically significant results can be explained by the “Hawthorne effect” which usually a limitation raised by the authors of experimental studies, could be assumed to be low.
Greater numbers of gifted students need to be studied to generalize these findings to the gifted population. In addition, the study was performed using only one unit in science education. The study lacks sufficient foundation to generalize its findings to other topics in science education or other academic subjects. For future research, multiple control-only and treatment-only schools might be studied, or gifted students who are diverse along lines of gender, socio-economic status, language, and ethnicity might be evaluated.
This research study was performed within a framework of enrichment in accordance with the national education programs. Notwithstanding the country’s political consideration, another line of thought related to the education of the gifted leads to this potential research question: When an approach of acceleration is integrated with the approach of enrichment on the basis of depth and complexity, what is the effect on the learning by gifted students?
Copyright (C) 2015 HKIEd APFSLT.Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 6 (Jun., 2015). All Rights Reserved.
