The study of present and optimum educational contents among gifted students of Isfahan based on a differentiation approach

Document Type : Scientific Articles

Authors

Abstract

The aim of this study was to review of the current and optimum contents in Isfahan schools for gifted students. In order to run the research, a mixed method was applied. The research population included all the students and teachers in Isfahan gifted schools, and the qualitative and quantitative sampling methods included typical sampling and random ones, respectively. Data collection instruments included semi-structured interview and the questionnaire was a researcher-made one. In order to evaluate the validity in the qualitative segment, triangulation and check member was applied, while in the quantitative segment, content validity, conformity factor analysis, and Cronbach's alpha were applied. The results revealed that based on the teachers and students' point of view, the present contents were not functional and they were just some general ones. They didn't consider the needs and interests either, and ignored the common lessons. As the samples stated, optimum contents should follow some principles like having practical activities, up-to-date technical contents, the presence of the supplementary textbooks, reasoning with structural logic for the discussions, considering teens' challenges, needs and interests. Reviewing these items with a qualitative questionnaire approved the students' ideas in a wide range.

Keywords

References

11.Berg, L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson Education Company.
12.Cheng, V. (2017). Leading a radical shift in the education of high ability learners. In L. S. Tan, L. D. Ponnusamy, & C. G. Quek (Eds.), Curriculum for high ability learners, 117-129.
13.Creswell, W. (2011).  Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
14.Firmender, J. M; Reis, S. M; Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1) 3-14.
15.Fonseca, C. (2011). Emotional intensity in gifted students: Helping kids cope with explosive feelings. Texas: Prufrock Press.
16.Gross, U. (2015). Characteristic of able gifted, high gifted. Exceptional Gifted and Profoundly Gifted Student, 44, 81-93.
17.Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis: Free Spirit press.
18.Johns, B. H; McGrath, M, Z; Mathure, S. R. (2009). The many faces of special educators: Their unique talents in working with students with special needs and in life. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education Press.
19.Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279 – 299.
20.Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 1– 15.
21.Krejcie, R. V; Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
22.Landis, R; Reschly, A. (2013).  Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 220– 249.
23.Levy, M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81(4), 161-164.
24.Little, C. (2012). Curriculum for gifted student. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 29-45.
25.Lu, J; Li, D; Stevens, C. (2015). Comparisons and analyses of gifted students’ characteristics and learning methods. Gifted Education International, 52(9), 1–17.
26.McCoach, D; Siegle, D. (2003) Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(3), 144–159.
27.McCoach, D; Siegle, D. (2008). Underachievers. Newyork: Plucker&Callahan
28.Reis, M; Renzulli, S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308-317.
29.Reis, S. M; McCoach, D. B; Little, C. A; Muller, L. M; Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (2), 38-51.
30.Rinn, N; Bishop, J. (2015,).  Gifted Adults: A Systematic Review andAnalysis of the Literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213– 235.
31.Schmitt, M. (2009). Gifted student in diverse environments: an analysis of interaction and perception. Research submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master of Science. Ohio University.
32.Seo, H. (2017).  Developing Science Curriculum for Gifted Learners in South Korea. Curriculum for High Ability Learners, 42, 52-69.
33.Stoeger, H; Ziegler, A. (2012). Deficits in fine motor skills and their influence on persistence among gifted elementary school pupils. Gifted Education International, 29(1), 28–42.
34.Subotnik, F; Olszewski-Kubilius, P; Worrell, F. C.(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposeddirection forward based on psychological science.Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(5)12, 3-54.
35.Swift, M. (2009). The effect differentiated in social studies on student performance. Research submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master of Science. Ohio University.
36.Tan, L; Tan, C. (2017). Theory, Research and Conceptions of Curriculum for High Ability Learners: Key Findings, Issues and Debates. Curriculum for High Ability Learners, 14(5), 32-57.
37.Tirri, K. (2008). Who should teach gifted students? Revista Española de Pedagogía, 66(240), 315-324.
38.VanTassel-Bask, J. (1987).  Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 164–169.
39.VanTassel-Bask, J; Stambaugh, C. (2006). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners. Texas: Prufrock Press.
 
 
Journal of Educational Psychology Studies
Volume 14, Issue 27
October 2017
Pages 1-28

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics