Evaluating the effect of differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules on gifted students' scientific process skills

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2020.039

Keywords:

Inquiry-based, Differentiation, Gifted education, Science process skills, Science lesson modules

Abstract

The concept of “Global citizenship”, which has become more and more important, based on the students' multi-focused individual development, has brought to the fore based on 21st century skills and has required appropriate educational environments for gifted students. In this context, the development of differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules for gifted students will fill the current gap as it is important for the literature. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules for gifted students on the students' scientific process skills (SPS). As a method, the nature of the study was directed us to mixed nested patterns and developed three modules that applied to 16 gifted students in Science and Art Centers. In the evaluation process, we used “Diet Cola SPS test” as quantitative data source for pre and posttests. Also, we used observations in the implementation process and SPS activity reports filled out by students as qualitative data sources. As a result of data analysis, we found that SPS improved significantly (t (14) = -5.06, p <.05). Accordingly, we have seen that this development in students is in basic and causal SPS, there is less development in experimental processes. We concluded that the gifted students needed more in depth and challenging activities in longer periods using modules like given in this study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdurrahman, A., Ariyani, F., Maulina, H., & Nurulsari, N. (2019). Design and validation of inquiry-based stem learning strategy as a powerful alternative solution to facilitate gifted students facing 21st century challenging. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7 (1), 33-56.

Adams, C. M. & Callahan, C. M. (1995). The reliability and validity of a performance task for evaluating science process skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (1), 14 – 20.

Akçam Yalçın, İ. (2017). The bridge between science curriculum and inquiry based science education: the training of pre-service classroom teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Hacettepe University Mathematics and Science Education Department, Ankara.

Andriyani, R., Shimizu, K., & Widiyatmoko, A. (2019). The effectiveness of project-based learning on students’ science process skills: a literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1321 (3), 032121.

Altıntaş, E. & Özdemir, A. S. (2015). The effect of differentiation approach developed on creativity of gifted students: Cognitive and affective factors. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(8), 1191-1201.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.

Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (1), 17-29.

Biological Science Curriculum Study (2006). Why does inquiry matter? Because that’s what science is all about! USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Bostan-Sarıoğlan, A., Can, Y. & Gedik, İ. (2016). The assessment of the suitability of the activities in 6th grade science course books for inquiry based learning approach. Journal of Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Edcation, 16 (3), 1004-1025.

Büyüköztürk, S. (2009). Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation. (10. Ed.) Ankara: Pegem.

Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. (pp.1-14). Dordrecht: Springer.

Callahan, C. M. (2017). The characteristics of gifted and talented students. In C.M. Callahan & H.L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.) Fundamentals of Gifted Education (pp. 153-166). New York: Routledge.

Callahan, C M, Hunsaker, S L, Adams, C M, Moore, S D, Bland, L C (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students (RM-95130). Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Can, A. (2016). Quantitative data analysis with spss in scientific research process. Ankara: Pegem.

Carin, A. A., & Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Carin, A. A., & Sund, R. B. (1989). Teaching science through discovery. Toronto: Merrill Publishing Company.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction: Understanding how content and process go hand-in-hand with school science. The Science Teacher, 71(2), 46-50.

Coleman, M. R., & Shah-Coltrane, S. (2010). U-STARS~ PLUS science literature connections: using science, talents, and abilities to recognize students~ promoting learning for underrepresented students. VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cotabish, A., Dailey, D. Robinson, A.& Hughes, G. (2013). The effects of a stem intervention on elementary students' science knowledge and skills. School Science and Mathematics. 113(5), 215-226.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: A qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Çalıkoğlu, B. S., & Kahveci, N. G. (2015). Altering depth and complexity in the science curriculum for the gifted: results of an experiment. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16 (1), 1-22.

Çepni, S. (2005). Science and technology learning (3rd Ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Çepni, S. (2014). Introduction to research and project studies. Trabzon: Celepler Press.

Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D., & Turgut, M. F. (1997). Physics teaching. Ankara: HEC/World Bank National education development project, Preservice teacher education.

Day, D. V., & O’Connor, P. M. (2017). Talent Development. The Oxford Handbook of Talent Management, 343-360.

Dinçol Özgür S. & Yılmaz A. (2017). The opinions of the gifted and talented students on inquiry-based learning, IV. International Eurasian Educational Research Congress Conference Proceedings (pp. 667-668). Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International journal of science education, 25(6), 671-688.

Duran, M. (2015). The effect of activities based on research-based learning approach on students' inquiry learning skills. International Journal of Social Science, 32, 399-420.

Dwianto, A., Wilujeng, I., Prasetyo, Z. K., & Suryadarma, I. G. (2017). The development of science domain based learning tool which is integrated with local wisdom to improve science process skill and scientific attitude. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 23- 31.

Ekert, S., Rotthowe, L., & Weiterer, B. (2012). Training modules-competence and outcome orientation in educational provision within the transitional sector. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, 4, 28-31.

Erkol, S., & Ugulu, I. (2014). Examining biology teachers candidates’ scientific process skill levels and comparing these levels in terms of various variables. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 116, 4742-4747.

Ewers, T.G. (2001). Teacher – directed versus learning cycles methods: Effects on science process skills mastery and teacher efficacy among elementary education students. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, University of Idaho, USA.

Feldman, ID. H. (2000). Developmental theory and the expression of gifts and talents. In C. F. M. Van Lieshout & P. G. Heymans (Eds.), Developing talent across the lifespan (pp. 3-16). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). A conception of talent and talent development. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 193-209). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Fowler, M. (1990). The Diet Cola Test. Science Scope, 13, 32-34.

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.

Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147.

Genç, M., Genç, T., & Rasgele, P. G. (2018). Effects of nature-based environmental education on the attitudes of 7th grade students towards the environment and living organisms and affective tendency. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27(4), 326-340.

George, P. (1997). Making a place for the bright sparks: The challenge of the gifted child in science. Science Education Newsletter, 133, 1-2.

Godor, B. P., & Szymanski, A. (2017). Sense of belonging or feeling marginalized? Using PISA 2012 to assess the state of academically gifted students within the EU. High Ability Studies, 28(2), 181-197.

Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S., &Lynham, S. A. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin &Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, (pp. 97-128).

Gumilar, R. P., Wardani, S., & Lisdiana, L. (2019). The implementation of guided inquiry learning models on the concept mastery, scientific attitude, and science process skill. Journal of Primary Education, 8(5), 148-154.

Han, K. S. (2017). Why & How we apply PBL to science-gifted education? Creative Education, 8(6), 912-924.

Howard, J. A. (2017). Affective learning opportunities for gifted adolescents. Teaching and learning sciences: Doctoral Research Projects, 13, University of Denver, USA.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kaplan, S.N. (2009). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (2005). Developing an early passion for science through competitions. In K. S. Taber (Ed.) Science education for gifted students, (pp. 25-31). London: Routledge

Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. Pfeifer (Ed.) Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 71-91). Boston: Springer.

Kaya, G., & Yılmaz, S. (2016). The effect of open inquiry-based learning on students' success and development of scientific process skills. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 31(2), 300-318.

Kim, C. H., & Kang, H. K. (2014). The relationship between scientific problem finding ability and experimental design ability in elementary gifted children and ordinary children. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 25(4), 111-127.

Köksal, E. A. & Berberoğlu, G. (2014). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students' achievement, science process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66-78.

Kuo, Y. R., Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (2019). Examining low and non-low achievers’ motivation towards science learning under inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 (5), 845-862.

Kutlu, N., & Gökdere, M. (2015). The effect of Purdue model based science teaching on creative thinking. International Journal of Education and Research, 3 (3), 589-600.

LaBanca, F. (2007). The Connecticut Science Fair: Impressions of sixty years of innovation.Connecticut Journal of Science Education, 45, 14-18.

LaBanca, F. (2008). Impact of problem finding on the quality of authentic open inquiry science research projects. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, Western Connecticut State University, USA.

Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.

Lawson, A. E. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning: A synthetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 307-338.

Lincoln, E. G. & Guba, Y. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation. 2nd Ed. USA: Corwin Press.

Maeng, J. L. (2017). Using technology to facilitate differentiated high school science instruction. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1075-1099.

Maeng, J. L., & Bell, R. L. (2015). Differentiating science instruction: Secondary science teachers' practices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2065-2090.

Marsan, L. A., D’Arcy, C. E. & Olimpo J. T. (2016). The impact of an interactive statistics module on novices’ development of scientific process skills and attitudes in a first-semester research foundations course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17 (3), 436-443.

McGee, C. (2018). Artful teaching and science investigations: A perfect match. Gifted Child Today, 41(1), 41-53.

Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 25-29.

MEB, (2018). Science lesson (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum for elementary and middle education (Primary education). Ankara: MEB Publishing.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. USA: Sage Publications.

Mohan, R. (2019). Innovative science teaching. India: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.

Moon, J. (2002). The module & programme development handbook: A practical guide to linking levels, learning outcomes & assessment. London: Stylus Publishing Inc.

Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, language, and perception (5th ed.) (pp. 947-978) New York: Wiley.

Murphy, C., Smith, G. & Broderick, N. (2019). A starting point: Provide children opportunities to engage with scientific inquiry and nature of science. Research in Science Education, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9825-0

Muşlu Kaygısız, G. Benzer, E. Uçar, M (2017). Evaluation on preservice science teachers’ experimental design related to scientific process skills. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 7(3), 467-483.

Nasution, D., Harahap, P. S. & Harahap, M. (2018). Development instrument’s learning of physics through scientific inquiry model based batak culture to improve science process skill and student’s curiosity. In Indonesian Journal of Physics: Conference Series l, 970. Indenesia: IOP Publishing.

National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Educating teachers of science, mathematics and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS (2013). The next generation science standards. The National Academy of Sciences, USA.

Novia, N., & Riandi, R. (2017). The analysis of students scientific reasoning ability in solving the modified Lawson Classroom Test of scientific reasoning (MLCTSR) problems by applying the levels of inquiry. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 116-122.

Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F. & Arslan, A. (2014). Examination of the effects of model-based inquiry on students’ outcomes: Scientific process skills and conceptual knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1187-1191.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2009). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61–70.

Özdemir, O. (2010). The effects of nature-based environmental education on environmental perception and behavior of primary school students. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 27(27), 125-138.

Özgen, K. & Alkan, H. (2012). An analysis of student views on activities developed according to learning styles within a constructivist learning environment. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 18(1), 239-258.

Padilla, M. J. (1986). The science process skills: Research matters... to the science teacher. USA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Park, S. K., Park, K. H. & Choe, H. S. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and scientific giftedness in Korea. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2-3), 87-97.

Qadar, R. Samsiah, S & Haryanto, Z. (2018). The use of affective and cognitive assessment on the learning of mirrors and lenses through the inquiry laboratory approach. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA JPP, (4)1, 25-34.

Reis, S. M. & Housand, A. M. (2008). Characteristics of gifted and talented learners: Similarities and differences across domains. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Ed.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merril/ Prentice Hall.

Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is thing called giftedness and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 23(1), 3-54.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K. & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students: Technical and administration manual. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Robinson, A., Shore, B. M. & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G. & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189-213.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396.

Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socio-scientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science, 46(8), 909-921.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(2), 69-74.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. England: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 189-202.

Stout, B. (2001). Tools for scientific inquiry in a fifth-grade classroom. Primary Voices K – 6, 10 (1), 23-27.

Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373-394.

Sumida, M. (2013). Emerging trends in Japan in education of the gifted: A focus on science education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 277–289.

Sumida, M. (2017). Science education for gifted learners. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.) Science Education (pp. 479-491). Netherlands: Brill Sense.

Şener, N., & Taş, E. (2017). Improving of students’ creative thinking through purdue model in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(3), 350.

Şimşek, P. & Kabapınar, F. (2010). The effects of inquiry-based learning on elementary students’ conceptual understanding of matter, scientific process skills and science attitudes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1190-1194.

Şimşek, H. & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Pub.

Taber, K. S. (2007). Science education for gifted learners, In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 1–14). London, England: Routledge.

Taber, K. S., & Riga, F. (2016). From each according to her capabilities; to each according to her needs: Fully including the gifted in school science education. In S. Markic and S. Abels (Eds.) Science education towards inclusion, (pp. 195-220).

Tatar, N. (2006). The effect of inquiry-based learning approaches in the education of science in primary school on the science process skills, academic achievement and attitude. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.

Thier, H. D., & Daviss, B. (2001). Developing inquiry-based science materials. A guide for educators. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tirri, K. (2012). What kind of learning environment supports the learning of gifted students in science? In A. Ziegler, C. Fisher, H. Stoeger, & M. Reutlinger (Eds.), Gifted education as a lifelong challenge: Essays in honour of Franz J. Mönks (pp. 13–24). Münster, Germany: LIT Verlag.

Torkar, G., Avsec, S., Čepič, M., Ferk Savec, V., & Juriševič, M. (2018). Science and technology education in Slovenian compulsory basic school: Possibilities for gifted education. Roeper Review, 40(2), 139-150.

Üzüm, P. A. (2017). Opinions of students' about talent management at universities. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2), 464-485.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2015). Differentiation in action: The integrated curriculum model. Revista De Educación, 368, 225–244.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 200–211.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342-358.

Volk, V. (2008). A Global Village Is a Small World. Roeper Review, 30(1), 39-44.

Wang, J. R., Huang, B. Y., Tsay, R. F., Lee, K. P., Lin, S. W., & Kao, H. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of inquiry-based instruction on student learning outcomes in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (De La Salle University Manila), 20(3), 534-542.

Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (1997). Optimising activities to meet the needs of young children gifted in mathematics and science. In P. Rillero & J. Allison (Eds.) Creative Childhood Experiences in Mathematics and Science. Projects, Activity Series, and Centers for Early Childhood, (pp. 143-170). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Wu, H-K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth grader's inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1289-1313.

Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry‐based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63-95.

Yuen, M., Chan, S., Chan, C., Fung, D. C., Cheung, W. M., Kwan, T., & Leung, F. K. (2018). Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted students in regular classes: A project for primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 36-46.

Yang, H. G., & Park, J. (2017). Identifying and applying factors considered important in students’ experimental design in scientific open inquiry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(6), 932-945.

Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823.

Published

2021-02-01

How to Cite

Ülger, B. B., & Çepni, S. (2021). Evaluating the effect of differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules on gifted students’ scientific process skills. Pegem Eğitim Ve Öğretim Dergisi, 10(4), 1289–1324. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2020.039