Browse > Article

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

Chun, Mi-Ran (BK21 SENS)
Shin, Yoon-Joo (Department of Science Education, Seoul National University)
Lee, Sung-Muk (Department of Science Education, Seoul National University)
Choe, Seung-Urn (Department of Science Education, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.28, no.3, 2008 , pp. 241-252 More about this Journal
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
scientifically gifted students; science gifted education program; program evaluation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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)
2 Feldhusen, J. E. (1985). Toward excellence in Gifted Education. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Co.
3 Fetterman, D. M. (1993). Evaluate yourself. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
4 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   DOI
5 Landrum, M. S.(2001). An evaluation of the catalyst program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 139-151   DOI
6 Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K.(2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
7 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
8 Callahan, C. M.(2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
9 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
10 Feng, A. X., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Designing and utilizing evaluation forgifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Co.
11 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
12 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
13 Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University
14 Coleman, J., & Fults, B. (1985). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116-120   DOI
15 Shore, M. B., Cornell, A. R., & Ward, V. S.(1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. NY: Teachers College Press
16 Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted Children. New York: Macmillan
17 Smutny, J. F. (2002). Designing and developing programs for gifted students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
18 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   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Renzulli, J. (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the giftedand talented. Creative Learning Press
20 Treffinger, D. (2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Co.
21 Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77   DOI
22 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
23 Ford, D.(1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 52-60   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Hertzog, N. B.(2003). Impact of gifted program from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143   DOI