Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Science Gifted Learning Program: Research & Education Model

  • Published : 2005.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper suggests a research & education (R&E) model for the gifted in science education. The model has been developed under three assumptions. The first is that using the sequences of a gifted educational program designed to facilitate the process will assist in gifted students' construction of scientific knowledge and comprehension of laboratory practice through concrete experimental experience. The second is that gifted students will be able to apply this learning to further study using and extending scientific knowledge and experience. The third is that challenging tasks and feedback at the requisite stage of development will improve instructional effectiveness. The R&E Model has five phases: engaging, exploring, planning, performing and elaborating; furthermore, it suggests roles for the mentee and mentor. The R&E model has two functions for gifted education. The first is providing guidance for gifted curriculum developers as they design a mentor program, and the second is helping a mentor improve instructional effectiveness through use of strategies. This model has potentials to educate the gifted students in the Science Education Institute for the Gifted.

Keywords

References

  1. Buerger, W. (2003). A case of gifted education In a gymnasium and university in Germany: eight easy physics demonstrations for beginners. Report of Intemational Workshop: Promotion of Gifted Science Education in Science High Schools. Pp.15-33 (in German and Korean). Seoul, Korea, Nov. 12, 2003
  2. Casey, K.M. and Shore, B.M. (2000). Mentors' contributions to gifted adolescents' affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22 (4), 227-230 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554043
  3. Choe, H.S. (2004). Mentorship as a differentiated teaching strategy for scientifically gifted students. The meeting of the 8th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, pp187-189
  4. Donaldson, S.I., Ensher, E.A. and Grant-Vallone, E.J. (2000). Longitudinal examination of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Journal of Career Development, 26, 233-249 https://doi.org/10.1177/089484530002600401
  5. Gibson, S. and Efinger, J. (2001). Revisiting the schoolwide enrichment model-An approach to gifted programming. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 48-53 https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103300407
  6. Heo, J.Y., Lee, S.c., and Choi, K.S. (2003). Research on mentorship education for gifted students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 13 (3), 45-68. (in Korean)
  7. Hudson, P., and Skamp, K. (2002). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(1). (http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html) (Sept., 2002). Accessed : Feb 10 2004
  8. Kluiber, Z. (2003). Teacher's initiative for research, education, and development in a high school in the Czech Republic. Report of International Workshop : Promotion of Gifted-Science Education in Science High Schools. Pp. 47-53 (in English and Korean). Seoul, Korea, Nov 12, 2003
  9. Korlevic, K. (2005). Mentorship programs for gifted high school students in Croatia. Report of International Workshop : Promotion of Gifted-Science Education in Science High Schools. pp. 13-28. Seoul, Korea, Feb 1-2, 2005
  10. Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625 https://doi.org/10.2307/255910
  11. Kwon, S. I. (2003). Orientation of research and education to develop science high schools. Report of International Workshop: Promotion of Gifted- Science Education in Science High Schools. Pp. 9-12 (in Korean). Seoul, Korea, Nov. 12, 2003
  12. Mincemoyer, C.C. and Thomson, J.S. (1998). Establishing effective mentoring relationships for individual and organizational success. Journal of Extension, 36 (2). (http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1998april/ a2.html) (April 1998). Accessed: Feb 10 2004
  13. Packard, B. (2003). Student training promotes mentoring awareness and action. The Career Development Quarterly, 51 (4), 335-345 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2003.tb00614.x
  14. Phillips-Jones, L. (2004). When is it 'Mentoring'? http://www.menoringgroup.com/html/idea_31.htm. Accessed: Sep 15 2004
  15. Renzulli, J.S. (1988). The Multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quaterly, 32 (3), 288-309 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200302
  16. Richie, S.M. and Rigano, D.L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (7), 799-815 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<799::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-I
  17. Schallies, M. and Lembens, A. (2002). Student learning by research. Journal of Biological Education, 37 (1), 13-17 https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2002.9655840
  18. Shevitz, B., Weinfeld, R., Jewler, S. and Barnes-Robinson, L. (2003). Mentoring empowers gifted/learning disabled students to soar. Roeper Review, 26(1), 37-40 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554237
  19. Shim, K.C., So, K.H., Kim, H.S. and Chang, N.K. (2001). Study on the interest in science of science gifted/talented middle school students 1-Comparison between gifted/talented and general students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21 (1), 122-134 (In Korean)
  20. Shim, K.C., So, KH., Kim, H.S. and Chang, N.K. (2003). Preference of science gifted/talented and general students for study course and occupation. The Korean Journal of Biological Education, 31(4), 292-298 (In Korean)
  21. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1992). Developing learner outcomes for gifted students. ERIC, ED 352 775
  22. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1998). Planning science programs for high-ability learners. ERIC, ED 425-567
  23. Whiting, V.R. (2004). Mentoring in the 21st century: Using the internet to build skills and networks. Journal of Management Education, 28(3), 275-293 https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903252639