Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Perception of the Scientifically Gifted and Long-term Effects of Science Gifted Education Program - from the Students' Perspectives

  • Published : 2008.05.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impacts of a science gifted education program. 155 students who experienced the SNU science gifted education program were interviewed. The interview questions consisted of eligible questions from 'Interview Protocol of Hertzog' (2003) based on 'Recommended Practice in Gifted Education (Shore, Cornell, & Ward, 1991)'. All interviews were immediately transcribed and analyzed qualitatively. It was found that scientifically gifted students had similar concepts of the gifted to what scholars consider as the gifted. Comparing the programs to school education program, the students agreed that the science gifted education program provided more experiments opportunities, higher and deeper level of contents, and more active interactions. Regarding long-term effects, it was found that program influenced on students' decisions for the future, stimuli and expansion of horizons, school work and entrance examinations. Students gained self-confidence and became more interested in science. Some pointed out that they felt greater stimulated, although some indicated an elevated level of self conceit. Implications of science gifted education were found based on these results.

Keywords

References

  1. Avery, L. D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O'Neill, B.(1997). Making evaluation work: One school district's experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(4), 124-132 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629704100402
  2. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K.(2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
  3. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University
  4. Borland, J. H. (1997). Evaluating gifted programs. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (2nd Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 253-268). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
  5. Coleman, J., & Fults, B. (1985). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116-120 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628202600305
  6. Callahan, C. M.(1992). Determining the effectiveness of educational services: Assessment issues. In Challenges in gifted education: Developing potential and investing in knowledge for the 21st century(pp. 109-114). Columbus Ohio State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED301131)
  7. Callahan, C. M.(2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
  8. Davalos, R. A., & Haensly, P. A.(1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review, 19, 204-207 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553830
  9. Feldhusen, J. E. (1985). Toward excellence in Gifted Education. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Co.
  10. Fetterman, D. M. (1993). Evaluate yourself. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
  11. Feng, A. X., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Designing and utilizing evaluation forgifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Co.
  12. Ford, D.(1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 52-60 https://doi.org/10.2307/2967284
  13. Greene, J.(1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage
  14. Hertzog, N. B.(2003). Impact of gifted program from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700204
  15. Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600204
  16. Landrum, M. S.(2001). An evaluation of the catalyst program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 139-151 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500207
  17. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY): The first three decades of a planned fifty-year longitudinal study of intellectual talent. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.). Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary gifted education (pp. 255-281). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
  18. Renzulli, J. (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the giftedand talented. Creative Learning Press
  19. Sapon-Shevin, M.(1993). Gifted education and the protection of privilege: Breakin the silence, opening the discourse. In L. Weiss & M. Fine(Eds.), Beyond silenced voices(pp. 45-73). Albany: State University of New York Press
  20. Shore, M. B., Cornell, A. R., & Ward, V. S.(1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. NY: Teachers College Press
  21. Smutny, J. F. (2002). Designing and developing programs for gifted students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
  22. Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 528-538
  23. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted Children. New York: Macmillan
  24. Treffinger, D. (2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Co.