“Inspire me” - High-ability students’ perceptions of school science
Abstract
A decline in the number of students opting to study science in high school is a matter of international concern, particularly in relation to students who demonstrate high academic ability in science. These high-ability students have the potential to be the innovators and leaders of the future. There is a paucity of research that provides insight into how schools address the motivational and learning needs of high-ability science students. Underpinned by a constructivist view of learning, this exploratory case study research used student questionnaires and focus group interviews to explore students’ views about their learning experiences in science. It investigated high-ability students’ perceptions of how their needs were being met. Findings indicate that these students generally experienced a wide range of teaching approaches across all science disciplines. Learning was mostly limited to science content and procedures with little evidence of students learning about how science works through Nature of Science.References
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
Author 1. (2012).
Authors et al. (2016).
Baviskar, S., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541–550. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121
Benny, N., & Blonder, R. (2016). Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: Results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers. Education Research International.
Borland, J. H. (2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population. Moreover, giftedness equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude: Spinal tap psychometrics in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 236–238. doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346825
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 347-366). London: Sage.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M. A., Castellano, J. A., Clinkenbeard, P. R., Rogers, K. et al. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy: National work group on acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(2), 180–203. doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100202
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. http://doi.org/DOI: 10.3102/0013189X023007005
Education Review Office. (2008). Schools’ provision for gifted and talented students. Retrieved from http://www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/Schools-Provision-for-Gifted-and-Talented-Students-Good-Practice-June-2008
Evans, M., & Boucher, A. R. (2015). Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 87–91. doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12073
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.634
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207–215. doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598810
Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281–295. doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9
Geertz, C. (1983). Thick description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gentry, M., & Springer, P. M. (2002). Secondary student perceptions of their class activities regarding meaningfulness, challenge, choice, and appeal: An initial validation study. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(4), 192–204.
Gilbert, J. K., & Newberry, M. (2007). The characteristics of the gifted and exceptionally able in science. In K. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 15–31). Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Gluckman, P. (2011). Looking ahead: Science education for the twenty-first century (A report to the Prime Minister from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor). Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Heald, S. B. (2016). Curriculum differentiation for gifted learners using instructional technology: A multiple-case study (Doctoral diss.). Georgia: Northcentral University.
Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Baker, R., Jones, A., Barker, M., Bell, M. et al. (2002). Curriculum, learning and effective pedagogy: A literature review in science education. Auckland, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70, 33–40.
Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33–41.
Kahyaoğlu, M., & Pesen, A. (2013). The relationship between gifted students’ attitudes towards science and technology and their learning and motivation styles. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 3(1), 38–49.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 429–442. doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9027-y
Kaul, C. R., Johnsen, S. K., Witte, M. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2015). Critical components of a summer enrichment program for urban low-income gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 32–40.
Landis, R. N., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 220–249. doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864
MacDonald, N. (2012). Sir Paul Callaghan: Kiwi visionary looks back on life. The Dominion Post. Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6636553/Sir-Paul-Callaghan-Kiwi-visionary-looks-back-on-life
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper presented at the meeting of high school science laboratories: Role and Vision. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Millar, R. (2010). Analysing practical science activities to assess and improve their effectiveness. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
Millar, R. (2011). Practical work. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ministry of Education NZ. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education NZ. (2012). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education NZ. (2015). “The national administration guidelinesâ€. Retrieved from http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/legislation/nags/
Mulqueeny, K., Kostyuk, V., Baker, R. S., & Ocumpaugh, J. (2015). Incorporating effective e-learning principles to improve student engagement in middle-school mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1. doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0028-6
Oliver, M., & Venville, G. (2011). An exploratory case study of Olympiad students’ attitudes towards and passion for science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(16), 2295–2322. doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.550654
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Thomson, D., & Rosen, R. (2017). Minority achievement gaps in STEM: Findings of a longitudinal study of Project Excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 20–39. doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673449
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies.
Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used? School Science Review, 96, 357.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Students’ interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165. doi.org/10.1002/tea.20263
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. http://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems (No. 31). Columbus, Ohio State University.
Rubenstein, L. D., & Siegle, D. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Understanding and promoting motivation in gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 619–621. doi:10.1002/pits.21625
Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., Mccoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678–694. doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620
Scager, K., Akkerman, S. F., Pilot, A., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Challenging high-ability students. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 659–679. doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.743117
Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Lesseig, K. (2016). The teachers’ role in developing, opening, and nurturing an inclusive STEM-focused school. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1. doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0040-5
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, J. E., & Mares, K. R. (2005). Evaluating the impact of science-enrichment programmes of adolescents’ science motivation and confidence: The splashdown effect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 359–375. doi.org/10.1002/tea.20052
Taber, K. S. (2007). Science education for gifted learners. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2016). Giftedness, intelligence, creativity, and the construction of knowledge in the science classroom. In K. Taber & M. Sumida (Eds.), International perspectives on science education for the gifted (pp. 2–11). Oxford: Routledge.
Wardman, J., & Hattie, J. (2012). Administrators' perceptions of full-year acceleration at high school. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(1), 32.
