Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Environmental and Interpersonal Factors on Development of the Mathematically Gifted: Cases of International Mathematical Olympiad Winners from Korea

  • Received : 2019.08.29
  • Accepted : 2019.09.19
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Spending as much time outside of school as in school, gifted youth are affected by non-school aspects including parents, other family members, peers, mentors, mathematics competitions and camp participations. These influences have been known to shape children's intellectual development, academic achievement, interests, and eventually college and career choices. From interviews with five former Olympians from Korea to identify out-of-school influences on their academic achievement and development, we discovered, in addition to confirmation of previously identified factors, additional sources of positive influence seldom previously mentioned and more common to Korean culture were gleaned - mathematics workbooks and Ha-Gwon. The findings of this study are informative for teachers and parents who are interested in development of gifted youth in providing ways to accommodate their special needs and in showing how they can carefully individualize those sources to be positively affecting intellectual development as well as academic achievement.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, J. M., & Schnick, A. K. (2008). Motivation. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 423-448). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  2. Allenbaugh, E. (2002). Deliberate success. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press.
  3. Bell, J. (2010). Educational resilience in primary school children in South Australia: An investigation. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2440/65629
  4. Benson, A. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2002). The case of Blake: Number word and number development. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  5. Bhanot, R., & Jovanovic, J. (2005). Do parents' academic gender stereotypes influence whether they intrude on their children's homework? Sex Roles, 52(9-10), 597-607. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3728-4
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
  7. Campbell, J. R., & Verna, M. A. (2007). Effective parental influence: Academic home climate linked to children's achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 501-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701785949
  8. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. Oxford, Enland: Oxford University Press.
  9. Cho, S. (2000). Current states and future directions of education for the mathematically gifted.
  10. Cho, S. H., & Lee, H. (2002). Korean gifted girls and boys: What influenced them to be Olympians and non-Olympians. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 106-111.
  11. Choi, K. (2010). Characteristics of Korean International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) winners and various developmental influences. (PhD), Teachers College, Columbia University.
  12. Choi, K. (2013). Influence of formal schooling on International Mathematical Olympiad winners from Korea. Roeper Review, 35(3), 187-196. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.794890
  13. Choi, K., & Hong, D. S. (2009). Gifted education in Korea: Three Korean high schools for the mathematically gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2009-883
  14. Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E. (1997). Mentoring: A time-honored option for education of the gifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 218-229). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  15. Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022002014
  16. Covington, M. V. (2002). The developmental course of achievement motivation: A need-based approach. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 33-56). San Francisco, CA: Elsevier Science.
  17. Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  18. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157-197. doi: 10.1023/a:1014628810714
  19. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Exper performance: Its sturcture and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725
  20. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
  21. Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10, 10-15. doi: 10.1177/026142949401000103
  22. Gagne, F. (2000). Understanding the complex chorography of talent development through DMGTbased analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67-79). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
  23. Gagne, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
  24. Gagne, F. (2005a). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davison (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 98-119). New York, NY: Canbridge University Press.
  25. Gagne, F. (2005b). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement with and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139-153. doi:10.1177/001698620504900204
  26. Gagne, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21, 81-99. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
  27. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
  28. Geist, E. A., & King, M. (2008). Different, not better: Gender differences in mathematics learning and achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(1), 43-52.
  29. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY.
  30. Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63-84). New York, NY: Macmillan.
  31. Guimond, S. (1999). Attitude change during college: Normative or informational social influences? Social Psychology of Education, 2, 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009662807702
  32. Gumbiner, J. (2003). Adolescent assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  33. Haile, G. A., & Nguyen, A. N. (2008). Determinants of academic attainment in the United States: A quantile regression analysis of test scores. Education Economics, 16(1), 29-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290701523218
  34. Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1992). Mentoring programs: Promise and paradox. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(7), 546-550.
  35. Jacobs, J. E., & Bleeker, M. M. (2004). Girls' and boys' developing interests in math and science: Do parents matter? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2004(106), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.113
  36. Kao, C.-Y. (2011). The dilemmas of peer relationships confronting mathematically gifted female adolescents: Nine cases in Taiwan. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210391658
  37. Karp, A. (2003). Thirty years after: The lives of former winners of Mathematical Olympiads. Roeper Review, 25(2), 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554204
  38. Kim, Y. (2008). The educational role of mathematics Ha-Gwon in the Korean American community. (Ed.D. dissertation), Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
  39. Kover, D. J., & Worrell, F. C. (2010). The influence of instrumentality beliefs on achievement motivation: A study of high achieving adolescents. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 470-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100305
  40. Krutetskii, V. A. (Ed.). (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
  41. Kwok, P. (2004). Examination-Oriented knowledge and value transformation in East Asian Cram Schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(1), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026280
  42. Lee, K. H., & Sriraman, B. (2012). Gifted girls and nonmathematical aspirations: A longitudinal case study of two gifted Korean girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211426899
  43. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  44. Marsh, P., Allen, J. P., Ho, M., Porter, M., & McFarland, F. C. (2006). The changing nature of adolescent friendships: Longitudinal links with early adolescent ego development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(4), 414-431. doi: 10.1177/0272431606291942
  45. McKenna, M., Hollingworth, P., & Barnes, L. (2005). Developing latent mathematics abilities in economically disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 27(4), 222-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554322
  46. Muratori, M. C., Stanley, J. C., Ng, L., Ng, J., Gross, M. U. M., Tao, T., & Tao, B. (2006). Insights from SMPY's greatest former child prodigies: Drs. Terence ("Terry") Tao and Lengard ("Lenny") Ng reflect on their talent development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000404
  47. Nokelainen, P., Tirri, K., Campbell, J. R., & Walberg, H. (2007). Factors that contribute to or hinder academic productivity: Compare two groups of most and least successful Olympians. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701785931
  48. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903386892
  49. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutor's and peers' scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 34(4), 313-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-3406-5
  50. Peat, M., Daziel, J., & Grant, A. M. (2000). Enhancing the transition to university by facilitating social and study networks: Results of a one-day workshop. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37, 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052900
  51. Piirto, J. (1998). Understanding those who create (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
  52. Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  53. Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of younf adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00338
  54. Schapiro, M., Schneider, B. H., Shore, B. M., Margison, J. A., & Udvari, S. J. (2009). Competitive goal orientations, quality, and stability in gifted and other adolescents' friendships: A test of Sullivan's theory about the harm caused by rivalry. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 71-88. doi:10.1177/0016986208330566
  55. Simpkins, S. D., Parke, R. D., Flyr, M. L., & Wild, M. N. (2006). Similarities in children's and early adolescents' perceptions of friendship qualities across development, gender, and friendship qualities. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(4), 491-508. doi:10.1177/0272431606291941
  56. Sonnert, G. (2009). Parents who influence their children to become scientists: Effects of gender and parental education. Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 927-941. doi: 10.1177/0306312709335843
  57. Stewart, E. B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124507304167
  58. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A metaanalysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859-884. doi:10.1037/a0017364
  59. Subotnik, R. F., Miserandino, A. D., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1996). Implications of the Olympiad studies for the development of mathematical talent in schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)86733-X
  60. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F., C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
  61. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning for early careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144. doi: 10.1126/science.1128690
  62. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
  63. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003a). Creative intelligence: Toward theoretical integration. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  64. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003b). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45-59). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  65. Wright, L., & Borland, J. H. (1992). A special friend: Adolescent mentors for young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553406
  66. Zorman, R. (1993). Mentoring and role modeling programs for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & H. A. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 727-742). New York: Pergamon.