Restricted UNDP/ROK/87/009 Terminal Report

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Education of Scientifically Gifted Students

Project Findings and Recommendations

Serial No. FMR/ED/ECS/94/210(UNDP)

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

United Nations Development Programme

Paris, 1994

»

R E P U B L I C OF K O R E A

EDUCATION OF SCIENTIFICALLY GIFTED STUDENTS

Project Findings and Recommendations

Report prepared for the Government of the Republic of Korea by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( U N E S C O ) Acting as Executing Agency for the United Nations Development Programme ( U N D P )

•

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

United Nations Development Programme

UNDP/ROK/87/009 Terminal Report FMR/ED/ECS/94/210(UNDP) 21 March 1994

(c) U N E S C O 1994 Printed in France

Table of Contents

Summary

I. DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS 1

II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT 3

A. KEDI: Provision of special education programmes 3 for scientifically gifted students in regular junior high schools

B. KAIST: Improvement of teachers' job performance 4 and enchancement of public recognition of the necessity of gifted education.

III. METHODOLOGY 5

A. Research designs of the project 5

B. Development and validation 9

IV. FINDINGS 17

A. Results of KEDI project 17

B. Results of KIT project 31

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 2

Annexes

A. UNESCO Consultants 35

B. Fellowships and study tours 36

References 38

SUMMARY

Total Government Contribution: Won 569,260,000 (in kind)

Total UNDP Contribution: $ 195,358

(a) Objectives (intended and achieved!

Development Objective

To increase the level of science and technology, particularly in its basic research and high-tech areas.

To contribute to this objective through the educational development of the scientifically gifted in Korea.

Immediate Objectives

(i) KEDX

To develop and field-test identification instruments with procedures and special education programmes to maximize the potential of scientifically gifted Junior, and Senior High School students.

(ii) KIT

To make aware to the concerned public at large the need for educating the scientifically gifted, for developing teachers' guides and in-service teachers for educating scientifically gifted students both at Science High School and College levels.

(b) Outputs Sought and Produced

KEPI

- Development of identification instruments and procedures to measure creative problem solving ability in science areas.

Validation of the identification instruments and procedures.

Development of special education programmes for scientifically gifted students in regular Junior and Senior High Schools.

To have one trained gifted education generalist and one trained science education generalist at KEDI on the identification of the scientifically gifted.

Employment of one trained gifted education generalist and two trained science education generalists at KEDI on special education programmes for the scientifically gifted students.

KIT

Improvement of science teachers' job performance.

Production of two teachers' guides on the scientifically gifted for teachers.

To have three highly qualified educationists on education for the scientifically gifted.

Increased public recognition of the need for educating the scientifically gifted.

c) Findinas

More than 100 science high school teachers have received in-service training;

professional staff of KEDI have been trained and become aware of the advantages of gifted education;

currently, several school boards encourage and support schools to provide enrichment programmes for the scientifically gifted.

the specially designed education programmes will soon become available commercially. This would increase the number of schools participating in the programme and benefit the 300,000 or so scientifically gifted students nationwide;

early identification instruments developed by KEDI have helped provide accelerated learning to exceptional students who would otherwise lose motivation.

d) Recommendations

The school level of gifted students following special education programmes is limited mostly to above junior high school. It is necessary to devise some ways to supply gifted education programmes for the more gifted at preschool and elementary school levels.

In the Republic of Korea, mainly cognitive aspects of children are considered for identification in science high schools and in other gifted education programmes. It is necessary to devise ways of assessing and collecting data on personality and social factors of children.

There are few girls, probably 3 to 10% identified and following gifted education programmes, in each science high school. Efforts should be made to widen the opportunities for gifted girls to be identified, to follow special education programmes and to be employed in the science sector as well as in other areas.

The effect of the enrichment programme should be evaluated through further study with more students and a longer period of implementation of the programme.

More educational institutions should offer courses on gifted education for continuous training of teachers who are interested in this area.

More effort is needed to continuously publicize the issue of gifted education through the mass media.

The transfer of expertise to other countries in Asia should be considered.

ROK/87/009: Education of Scientifically Gifted Students

Terminal Report

I. DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS

State of the art of gifted education in the Republic of Korea

1. Since the early 1970's, the Korean educational philosophy has been "equal education", which is to provide essentially the same educational experience to all the students of various ability levels. Vast human resources are available. This philosophy deters the development of human potential to its maximum, as it does not allow for individual differences in the rate of cognitive development. In 1986, the number of students at primary, junior high, and senior high schools was 4.8 million, 2.8 million, and 2.3 million, respectively. In order to achieve the maximum potential of these human resources in the Republic of Korea, it is necessary to provide educational programmes that are tailored to the learning characteristics of the students. 2. Only recently did the Government begin to act for the full development of the potential of scientifically gifted students. Four different Science High Schools were established in 1983 and 1984 at different locations in the country. These high schools were established to identify and provide special educational programmes in science for scientifically gifted students.

3. Criteria for students to enter these schools are a) top 3% in achievement in the school for the consecutive junior high school years, b) good performance in the entrance examination which generally measures achievement in subject areas with emphasis on science and maths, and c) good physical condition. All the students are required to stay in dormitories at each school. The curriculum covers more advanced levels of maths and science as compared to regular high school programmes. The remainder of the curriculum is essentially the same as that of the regular senior high schools. All costs incurred to attend are borne by the Government.

4. In 1985, the Korea Institute of Technology (KIT) was established to expand the educational services for scientifically gifted students to the college level. The name of KIT was changed to Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in 1988. The entrance requirements are: a) top 10% in general achievement in senior high school; b) pass an entrance exam in four subjects: Science, Mathematics, Korean, and English; c) high level of creativity; d) high cognitive abilities; and e) pass a physical exam. The major consideration is high achievement in maths, science and in the entrance exam. This system is quite different from that of all other universities which require students to take national college entrance preparatory exams which cover about 15 subjects.

5. The students also must live in residence on campus. The KIT students graduate after completion of 140 credit hours. This can be accomplished in two and half or three years for many students. Other universities require a four year residence for completion. As is the case for the Science High Schools, most of the costs are borne by the Government.

6. During the past four years, several other activities have taken place in attempts to enhance the ability of scientifically gifted students. Among these are: Annual maths Olympic games, science bowl at the senior high school level as well as summer camps for scientifically gifted junior and senior high school students.

1

The role of science education in the Republic of Korea

7. In the Republic of Korea, the necessity of providing special education programmes for the scientifically gifted has been recognized since the 1970's for the following two reasons: First, everybody has the right to develop their potential to the maximum extent. Second, the Republic of Korea with its scarce natural resources needs to utilize human resources to compete with other countries and be a leading country in the industrial and technological age.

8. The Korean Government's Sixth Five-Year Economic and Social Development Plan (1987-1991) identified the necessity of assistance in advancing the country's level of technology partially through the reformation of education and training services. The Government realized that the best strategy to foster continuous development and cope with the current difficult situation is to develop its own creative know-how and highly advanced technology, which can be efficiently fostered by creative gifted scientists.

9. The development objective of the project was to increase the level of science and technology particularly in its basic research and high-tech areas, as indicated in the Sixth Five-Year Economic and Social Development Plan of the Republic of Korea. This project was intended to contribute to achieving this objective through the educational development of the scientifically gifted in the Republic of Korea.

Necessity for developing identification instruments, enrichment programmes, and teachers' guides for gifted education in the field of science

10. However, there are some problems in providing opportunities to students who are scientifically gifted. They are: a) The number of students who are enrolled in Science High Schools are too few to truly represent the scientifically gifted population in the Republic of Korea; b) special education for the scientifically gifted starts at the senior high school level, and it is too late to adequately foster the development of the potential; and (c) the majority of science teachers in the Science High Schools and KAIST are not experienced in gifted education.

11. In order to address the problem of limited number of gifted students served with special programmes identification instruments and procedures need to be developed and field tested. The instruments should evaluate students' flexibility in problem-solving rather than just their accumulated knowledge in the science area. There are at present no appropriate instruments available for Korean settings.

12. With respect to programming, establishing special schools for scientifically gifted students would be the most straightforward way of dealing with the myriad of problems besetting effective programming at the junior and senior high school levels. However, such provisions as establishing special schools have a constraint, i.e. the scarcity of resources available for their implementation. It is, therefore, necessary to consider other options to expand special educational programmes for implementation in regular schools. There have already been several programmes developed and implemented in other countries. However, none of these or similar programmes were developed for the scientifically gifted students in the Republic of Korea.

13. The teachers who are now in charge of gifted education are not well trained on how to teach their gifted students. This is because there is no educational institution which provides pre- or in-service training on gifted education in the country. Since the success of gifted education is dependent upon the quality of teachers, there is an urgent need to train teachers in gifted education.

2

II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

14. The main goals and objectives of the project are: a) To prepare to launch gifted education for the scientifically gifted at the junior high schools; and b) to enhance the qualification of teachers in science high schools. The goals and objectives will be accomplished by developing and disseminating identification instruments, enrichment programmes, and evaluation tools for the regular junior high schools and by developing teachers' guides training teachers on gifted education, and enhancing public awareness on the necessity of gifted education. This project does not aim to evaluate the gifted education at either junior high schools or science high schools. Rather, it aims to develop several materials that can be used for educating the scientifically gifted in schools.

15. To achieve the goals and objectives of this project, the Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI) and KAIST took the responsibility for carrying out the activities listed below. KEDI is a governmental research institute with 700 personnel in about all areas in education.

A. KEDI: Provision of special education programmes for scientifically gifted students in regular junior high schools

(i) Development and validation of identification instruments

16. Governmental efforts so far have been solely directed towards gifted education at the senior high school level, specifically in four science high schools. However, the development of scientific talent can be maximized when special education begins as early as at the elementary school level.

17. One of the aims of this project was to develop testing instruments to be used for identification of scientifically gifted students in grade 5 and 6 in order to educate them at the junior high school level. Currently, there are only a few intelligence tests, achievement tests, and an aptitude test developed previously without local norms of gifted students. Existing instruments are not adequate to be used for identifying the scientifically gifted, because they measure general ability, personality, or aptitude. The instruments do not focus on science or science related ability, personality or aptitude. In addition, most of the tests were developed for assessing students of all levels. Therefore, these tests can have ceiling effects when they are used for identifying the scientifically gifted.

(ii) Development of special education programme for the scientifically gifted

18. The critical issues on "excellence toward education" have emerged since the equal education policy was launched in 1968 for junior high schools and in 1974 for senior high schools. In addition to these issues, the need and importance of providing a special enrichment programme for the scientifically gifted has been recognized since 1969 because current educational practice is not adequate to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of scientifically gifted students and to challenge them. This is because the level of concept taught is not challenging and thinking skills and research skills are not emphasized in the regular school system. Most of the teaching-learning activities focused on memorization of factual knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to develop special education programmes which challenge the scientifically gifted by employing concepts and thinking processes adjusted to maximize creative problem-solving abilities of the scientifically gifted.

19. The purpose of this project was to develop a science enrichment programme for the scientifically gifted in the junior high schools. There are, however, still many obstacles in implementing these programmes in the current school system.

3

(iií) Development of evaluation tools

20. Although it is not easy to evaluate gifted educational programmes in a rigorous manner, this evaluation is vital for fostering and improving the quality of gifted education programmes. Gifted programmes come and go; the record of continuity is dismal. Therefore, if teachers and programme directors hope to maintain or expand their programmes, they must be able to demonstrate the success of the programme to their administrators, to school board members, to parents, and to state or federal funding sources. This is accountability. These publics will want to know who is being served by the programme, how they are being served, and what beneficial effects the programme is having. They will also want to know if the programme is cost-effective, i.e. if the costs in time, personnel, and resources are producing optimal results. Equally important, teachers and programme directors will need information allowing them to revise and improve the programme. Beyond creating classroom quizzes or evaluating student papers and projects, teachers and co-ordinators usually have little training or experience in educational evaluation. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and provide teachers and educational administrators with evaluation tools and guide them on the evaluation process.

(iv) Training of researchers for competencies in identification, programming, and evaluation

21. There are several researchers in the Republic of Korea who have a professional background is educational psychology or curriculum development. However, no researcher has intensively studied an experience in gifted education. Although it is still possible to carry out this activity with limited experience and knowledge, training abroad in the practice of gifted education in advanced countries will upgrade the quality of the products to be produced through this project.

22. Therefore, it is necessary to have increased hands-on experience and to learn from more advanced countries' experience and practice in educating the scientifically gifted to develop identification instruments, enrichment programmes, and evaluation tools. This training abroad will increase the self-reliance of the KEDI research team.

B. KAIST: Improvement of teachers' job performance and enhancement of public recognition of the necessity of gifted education

(i) Development of teachers' guides and in-service training for teachers in Science High Schools and professors in KAIST

23. The teachers who are now in charge of gifted education are not well trained on how to teach their gifted students. This is because there have never been any policies on gifted education with the result that there are no educational institutes which provide pre- or in-service training on gifted education in the country.

(ii) Enhancement of public recognition of the necessity of gifted education

24. It is important for the public to recognize the necessity of gifted education, especially in science and technological areas if the education of the scientifically gifted is to obtain financial and administrative support. Without this support, gifted education may not be expanded to the whole country for more gifted students.

25. Public awareness of gifted education is increasing these days. Nonetheless, many gifted students remain ignored, bored, or forced to satisfy their needs outside of school. Some parents and educators argue that gifted programmes are elitist and undemocratic, and that gifted students are not the ones in need of help. The counter argument is that gifted students also deserve a "special education" commensurate with their special needs.

4

26. Since 1968 and 1974, when entrance examinations were abolished, citizens began to believe in equal education. Equal education has been interpreted as the same content, same learning and teaching method, and same learning speed for every student. In this circumstance, it is quite impossible to expand the population of the gifted who will be served with special education programmes.

27. Therefore, it is important to enhance public recognition of the necessity of gifted education through symposia and mass media.

(Hi) Researchers training for competencies in gifted education

28. As in the case of KEDI, KAIST has nobody with intensive experience in gifted education. More experts are needed for carrying out the project: developing teachers' guides and training teachers in Science High Schools and professors in KAIST.

Ill. METHODOLOGY

A. Research design of the project

29. There are several aspects that should be prepared to educate the scientifically gifted. The most urgently needed are identification instruments, enrichment programmes, evaluation tools for regular junior high schools, teachers' guides, in-service training for teachers for Science High Schools, and symposia for gaining public support. After preparing these things, they are to be validated and finally their effects should be evaluated. A summary of the research design is depicted in the following Table III-l. To carry out all these activities, researchers need to be trained in the education of the scientifically gifted and assistance of international experts was needed for conceptualizing each aspect of gifted education.

Table III-l: Research design of the project

Development

KEDI Regular Junior High Schools

Identification Instruments Enrichment Programme Evaluation Tools

In-service Training for Teachers

KAIST Science High Schools

Teachers' Guides In-service Training Symposia

Implementation

Grouping Administrative Support Financial Support Parental Support

Identification of the Gifted Curriculum implementation

Evaluation

Efficiency of operation Validity of content Qualification of Teacher Proqramme effect

Effect of Curriculum Effect of Identification

Training of Researchers and Invitation of International Consultants for Institution Building

5

(i) Conceptualization problems related to the main objectives of the project

Development of identification instruments

30. The scientifically gifted are defined as "those who are, compared to their age group, at or above 85th percentile in all and above 98th percentile in any one of the following psychological traits: mathematical and language ability, creativity, and task commitment. In addition, they should show strong interest and positive attitude toward science and science-related activities" (Cho, 1988).

31. Giftedness is not a physical concept such as height or weight, but a psychological construct which cannot be measured directly. Therefore, giftedness has to be implied or inferred through various psychological measurements such as intelligence, creativity, products, and thinking abilities (Hagen, 1982).

32. When developing identification instruments, there can be a problem of circular logic. In other words, to develop instruments that can be used for identifying the gifted, we need to identify a group of gifted people, in advance, on which we can verify the reliability and validity of the newly developed instruments. Without this group, it is not possible to verify the reliability and validity. However, there is no guarantee that the group truly represents the gifted population.

33. There are two different types of tests: norm-referenced test and criterion-referenced test. Even though the tests can originally be developed for identification of gifted students, the same tests can be used for measuring achievement level or improvement of abilities as well if they are developed as a criterion-referenced test. Therefore, some of the tests are developed in such a way that they can be used as norm-referenced and criterion-referenced test at the same time.

34. A multi-stage identification procedure model was adopted where identification proceeds from the first stage of parents and teacher recommendation, the second stage of group testing with various psychological testing, to the third stage of individual performance test by professionals. Tests developed here are (a) questionnaires that can be used during the first stage; (b) group tests that can be used during the second stage; and (c) project-type tests that can be used during the last stage. They are developed in such a way that they can function as a norm-referenced test and criterion-referenced test at the same time.

Development of enrichment programmes

35. An enrichment programme is planned and designed with "higher order" objectives. In addition to accelerated and advanced content, the following characteristics should be kept as principles of differentiating curricular for the gifted (Sato & Johnson, 1978):

a. High content complexity, which permits some student control over the direction and rate of learning, and which requires higher-level thinking (analysing, synthesizing, creating, and evaluating).

b. Content beyond the prescribed curriculum, emphasizing new disciplines and interrelatedness of disciplines.

c. Student-selected content, allowing student interests and needs to determine what will be learned.

d. Working with abstract ideas, theories, and concepts, requiring reflective, creative, and critical thinking.

6

e. Working with non-grade-level resources: That is, materials, equipment, and information other than books and beyond the designated grade-level.

36. One of the best known enrichment plans is the Enrichment Triad Model originated by Joseph Renzulli (1977). The plan may be implemented with students of any age and in a variety of grouping arrangements. As an overview, the three sequential but qualitatively different steps include: type I enrichment: general exploratory activities designed to acquaint the student with a variety of topics and interest áreas; type II enrichment: group training activities dealing with the development of "thinking and feeling" processes - for example, creativity and research skills: and type III enrichment: the investigation of real problems "that are similar in nature to those pursued by authentic researchers or artists in particular fields" (Renzulli, 1977). Importantly, type I and II activities are considered valuable for - and should be used with - all students. Type II activities, however, are felt to require the special creativity, ability, and energy of truly gifted students.

37. The enrichment programme for the scientifically gifted in this project was developed on the basis of the Enrichment Triad Model by Renzulli and attempted to reflect the characteristics of differentiated programmes for the gifted by Sato and Johnson (1978).

Development of evaluation tools

38. There are many models for structuring the evaluation of education programmes such as Stufflebeam et al. (1971), Provus's (1972), Eash's (1972) Renzulli's (1975) and Rimra's model (1977). Out of these models, Rimm's model both (a) structures programme evaluation in a relatively easy-to-follow fashion, and (b) ties it to the initial programme plan. In order to see, how the different parts of a programme fit together and, importantly, how evaluation can monitor all educational inputs, all processes and all outcomes are depicted in Figure III-2.

Figure III-2: Rimm's evaluation model (1977)

Decision Makers

Input (Resources)

- Personnel - Books and Materials

- Equipment - Facilities

Step I

Process (Activities)

- Identifica­tion methods

- Teacher in-service

- Teaching techniques and organiza­tion

- Enrichment activities

- Parent involvement

Step II

Outcome (Objectives)

- General cognitive achievement

- Specific skills achievement

- Student attitudes

- Student behaviours

- Student products

- Parent community attitudes

Step III

Evaluation

Step IV

7

39. The components within each of the three steps of the model reflect specific areas that should be evaluated. That is, each of the various types of input/resources (step I) of processes activities (step II), and of outcomes/ objectives (step III) should be evaluated. Evaluation data (step IV) from the components will present a comprehensive picture of the success and impact of a gifted programme. This information is brought together and fed back to the decision-makers who will use it for further planning for modifying the input and process steps, which may include programme expansion. Without the crucial evaluation step, there would be little clear basis for good decisions. Of course, the success of this approach depends heavily on the relevance and the clarity of the evaluation information obtained in step IV.

40. Step I: Input represents resources. Resources include such programme ingredients as teaching and support personnel, books, materials, equipment, facilities, community resource persons, specific student populations, or funding sources.

41. Step II: Process includes the activities of the programme such as identification procedures, teaching techniques, educational groupings, enrichment experiences, acceleration plans, teaching in-service training and parent involvement activities.

42. Step III: Outcome represents the goals and objectives of the gifted programme. It actually may be easier to complete the list for step III before completing steps I and II.

43. All these areas were target areas for developing evaluation tools in this project.

(ii) Domains related to this project

Activities carried out to develop, validate and disseminate materials for gifted education for the scientifically gifted in regular junior high schools by KEDI

44. For identification of the scientifically gifted, the Science Activities and Interest Inventory, Science Research Skills Test, Logical Thinking Test, and Project-type Science Problem-Solving Test were developed, validated and disseminated. For teaching and learning science, science enrichment programmes in Ecology, Energy, Electricity, Earth and Ocean were developed, implemented, and disseminated. Evaluation tools such as questionnaires, achievement tests and the Student Product Assessment Form were also developed, validated and disseminated (see Table III-3).

Table III-3: Activities carried out to prepare gifted education for the scientifically gifted in regular junior high schools by KEDI

Development

Identification Instruments - Science Activities and

Interest Inventory - Science Research Skills Test - Logical Thinking Test - Project-type Science - Problem-solving Test

Validation

Reliability and Validity through statistical analyses

Dissemination

Commercial Publisher and Ministry of Education

8

Enrichment Programmes - Secret of Ocean - Energy and Our Life - Our Earth - Human and Ecology - Electricity and Its Use

Evaluation tools - Questionnaires - Achievement Test - Student Product Assessment Form

Implementation and Evaluation of the programme

Validation

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Education

Activities carried out by KAIST to prepare teachers for teaching the scientifically gifted

45. Teachers' guides were developed which covered a brief description of the philosophy of gifted education, identification, curriculum development, instructional methods for enhancing creativity in science, types of programme . implementation, programme development, and evaluation. Teachers in Science High Schools and professors in KAIST were trained in utilizing the teachers' guides developed for them. A nationwide symposium for enhancing the awareness of the necessity of educating the scientifically gifted was held.

B. Development and validation

(i) Development and validation of identification instruments

Scientific Thinking and Research Skills Test (STRST): Logical Thinking Test and Science Research Skills Test

- Item selection and modification

46. The Scientific Thinking and Research Skills Test (STRST) is composed of two subtests: Science Research Skills Test and Logical Thinking Test. The Logical Thinking Test (LTT) and Science Research Skills Test (SRST) can be used at the second stage of identification of the scientifically gifted. The Logical Thinking Test was chosen because it assesses students' logical operations which correspond to students' ability to acquire science concepts and use scientific thought processes (Raven, 1974). To facilitate students' learning, it is essential to match instruction and curriculum materials with the cognitive development level of the students. To do this, the assessment of students' developmental reasoning capabilities is necessary. Test items that had been employed in prior research were used as a basis for developing STRST. Justification for basing the test on items from prior research was that these items have a high reliability and validity and each item measured one of the scientific thinking abilities and research skills.

47. Sentence length and word complexity were adjusted to produce a written test suitable for students reading at the fifth and sixth grade. A pool of 97 items was assembled. This item pool consisted of 86 items measuring basic science research skills, 40 items measuring integrated science research skills and 21 items measuring logical thinking skills.

9

Table III-4: Number of subjects by grade, area, school, and sex

1 Grade 1 Sex

5

6

7

8

9

Elemen­tary 5, 6

Junior High 7, 8, 9

Total

male female

male female

male female

male female

male female

male female

male female

Large city

16K-) 159(16)

16K-) 160(16)

180(9) 160(8)

180(9) 160(8)

180(9) 140(7)

322(-) 319(16)

540(9) 460(8)

1,641(33)

Mid to small city

163(-) 155(16)

157(-) 164(16)

140(7) 180(9)

140(7) 179(9)

140(7) 180(9)

320(-) 319(16)

420(7) 539(9)

1,599(34)

Village

16K-) 162(16)

159(-) 157(16)

180(9) 140(7)

179(9) 140(7)

181(9) 140(7)

320(-) 319(16)

540(9) 420(7)

1,599(32)

Total

485(-) 476(48)

477(-) 481(48)

500(25) 480(24)

490(25) 479(24)

501(25) 460(23)

962(-) 957(48)

1,500(25) 1,419(24)

4,836(97)

- Pilot testing

48. In pilot draft form, the STRST was administered to 422 randomly selected students and 396 teacher-recommended gifted students in grade 5 and 6. The emphasis in this phase was to determine the quality of the items. Teachers recommended students in each school based on such criteria as the following: a) above 120 of IQ score; b) within upper 10% of overall school achievement; and c) above A grade in Maths and Science tests that school administered; or d) exceptionally strong interest and active participation in science programmes. Results from this item analyses were used to select 40 items of science research skills and 21 items of logical thinking skills before a second large scale administration of a final version.

49. After the determination of the final version, STRST was administered to 240 teacher-recommended gifted students in grade 5 and 6 to analyse the data in terms of test validity and reliability and 4,836 randomly selected students in grade 5 to grade 6 in elementary schools and grade 7 to grade 9 in regular junior high schools in order to verify the validity and reliability of the test.

50. For estimation of concurrent validity, the Science Aptitude Test, which is a non-verbal test of Level G and H from the Kuhlraan-Anderson Test (Scholastic Testing Service, 1982) were administered.

10

Table III-5: Number of gifted students who took achievement test for verifying predictive validity

Grade

In the year 1988 5 6 Total

In the year 1989 6 7 Total

Number of schools

6 9

15

6 9

15

Number of students

163 118

281

161 117

278

51. To estimate test-retest reliability, the same tests were administered one month after the initial testing. For calculating predictive validity, the final form of the two subtests was given to 281 gifted students in the first year and the science achievement test was given to 278 in the next year. For developing local norms, grade equivalents, T score, and percentile ranks by grade for the gifted and the randomly selected groups were also produced separately by giving the test to 240 newly sampled gifted students in grade 5 and grade 6.

52. Data analyses were carried out using SPSSx package and some analyses were done by the FORTRAN programme developed by the research team. Descriptive statistics were computed and mean, median, standard deviation, range by grade, skewness, and kurtosis were examined.

Table III-6: Number of gifted students who took STRST for local norm

Grade

5 6

Total

Number of schools

4 4

4

Number of subjects

120 120

240

Science Activities and Interest Inventory (SAH)

- Item selection and modification

53. The items of the Science Activities and Interest Inventory (SAH) were constructed on the basis of the literature review. Items were generally classified into 8 factors such as active participation in science activities, attitude toward scientific inquiry method and participation in field activities. A Likert-type scale of 60 items was constructed with a three-point rating scale.

54. Literature on characteristics of the scientifically gifted and the autobiography of scientists showed that they had common traits. The traits could be summarized into three factors such as strong interest in science activities, positive attitude toward scientific research and nature, and strong interest in science as an academic subject.

55. Interest in science activities means active participation in visiting a science museum, frequent use of scientific experimental equipment to satisfy their curiosity in science, and frequent expression of their ideas in science through scientific experiments and science products. Attitude toward scientific research and nature means task commitment in problem-solving during experiment, advanced planning of experiments in advance, habits of

11

recording experimental results, and application of the experimental result to other situations and curiosity in nature. Interest in science as an academic subject means interest in science as a subject learned in schools. Sixty items were developed and finally 46 items were chosen, to measure these characteristics.

Table III-7: Number of subjects for validation of SAH

Grade

5 6

Total

Number of students (Number of schools)

420 (14) 417 (14)

837 (14)

- Validation

56. After determination of the items, the inventory was administered to 837 teacher-recommended gifted students from grades 5 and 6 (see Table III-7). Criteria for recommendation for the testing was the same as in the case of the testing of STRST described above. Factor analysis with oblique rotation resulted in 3 factors: 16 items in scientific inquiry method, 18 items in interest in science overall, 5 items in interest in participating in science activities and 7 items in field activities. For calculating test-retest reliability coefficients, the test was administered to the same students two weeks after the first administration of the inventory. Descriptive statistics of the test, reliability and validity were calculated with the SPSSx programme and generalization coefficients were also calculated.

Project-type Science Problem-Solving Test

- Item construction and selection

57. The Project-type Science Problem-Solving Test was developed to identify subjects who are able to identify problems, hypothesize, collect data, test hypothesis, interpret data, and defend their conclusion in a creative manner. This project-type test was developed to assess students' scientific creativity, logic and problem-solving ability in an integrated manner. This test can be used at the final stage after the second screening. Thirty-two items were constructed in four different areas: Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Earth Science. Phases such as designing experiments, carrying out experiment, and data interpretation on the basis of observation of experimental procedure and writing reports were the target aspects of evaluation.

58. Contents of the problem were chosen from the curricula for students in grade 5 and 6 and the research skills and thinking processes needed to solve the problems were levelled at the students in grade 8 and 9 in general. High level thinking processes and research skills were chosen in order for the test to be able to discriminate the extremely gifted from the gifted.

59. For implementing this test, a diagnostic-prescriptive approach was applied, and scores were given based on the number and kinds of prompts provided by the examiner to the examinee. In this project, the rating scale is revised in such a way that it renders scoring of students' performance more reliable. Evaluation can be carried out by teachers or professionals in each area of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Earth Science on three different phases such as designing experiment, carrying out experiment, and data interpretation through observation of students' performance and reviewing examinees' written reports. Focus of evaluation is on logic and creativeness of the problem-solving.

12

- Data collection and validation

60. To determine its discrimination power, small scale pilot testing was carried out with 20 gifted children identified through the first and second screening. Four problems were given to each subject. Professionals in each of the science areas observed students who are involved in problem-solving through science experiments. Subjects who participated in validation of the science problem-solving test were the 10 highest scorers and another ten randomly selected subjects of above average among the gifted on the STRST. Twenty students were classified into four groups: a) the extremely gifted in grade 5, b) the extremely gifted in grade 6, c) the gifted in grade 5, and d) the gifted in grade 6. Each student had to solve four problems, one in each area of science according to the score on the STRST and grade. Evaluation of students' ability was carried out during experimentation by observation and after experimentation by analysing written reports.

61. Because normal distribution of the scores could not be assumed and there were few subjects, non-parametric statistical analyses were employed for estimating inter-rater reliability, group differences, and concurrent validity.

(ii) Development of enrichment programme

Development of teaching-learning materials

62. To develop a science enrichment programme for the scientifically gifted, various enrichment programmes for the gifted developed abroad were studied and analysed. Current gifted education programmes developed and practised in the Republic of Korea were also analysed in a critical manner. On the basis of the analyses and theoretical guide, directions for developing enrichment programmes in this project were decided.

63. Topics to be covered in the programme were chosen considering the current junior high school curriculum and students' interest. Five topics were chosen in such areas as Ocean, Electricity, Ecology, Earth, and Energy for the scientifically gifted junior high school students. Enrichment programmes on each topic were developed on the basis of the following principles:

- an interdisciplinary or integrated science approach should be considered; - confirming and discovery experiments should be included; - the content should be enrichment-oriented in nature; - projects as independent studies should be included; - the utilization of a variety of audio-visual materials are recommended; and - discussions are encouraged as a major learning activity. 64. Topics and subtopics covered in the enrichment programme are as follows:

Secrets of Ocean a) Overview of ocean b) Characteristics of ocean c) Movement of sea water Electricity and its use a) Visiting power plant b) Generator and electricity c) Current and electricity d) Electricity and magnet field Human and ecology a) Ecology of lake b) Investigation of individual organs c) Pollution in ecology

13

Our earth a) Observation of rock b) Geological events c) Volcano and earthquake d) Movement of land under the sea Energy and our life a) Circulation of energy in nature b) Transformation of energy c) Energy, fuel, and food shortage d) How to cope with energy crisis 65. There are common teaching-learning activities employed for projecting each topic and subtopic. Learning of each topic starts with discussion on the concepts or problems that are to be learned or solved on the basis of a literature review. Then, students may view some videos, or listen to a talk by an invited expert in the field. This increases motivation to investigate some problems in that area. These are followed by a confirming experiment, a discovery experiment, and an individual or small group project on problems that students may face in real life situations. One teachers' guide and one students' workbook were developed.

Implementation of enrichment programme in schools

66. All the five topics developed were provided to scientifically gifted students at four junior high schools, one in Seoul and the rest in the middle-sized cities. Very few schools were interested in implementing the programme because the current school operation system does not allow new programmes to be introduced. Therefore, teachers and students had to stay longer at school to participate in this programme after school hours. Generally, principals were aware of the necessity of gifted education and were interested in introducing the programme. However, it was not easy to get permission from teachers and parents. Several schools where qualified science teachers and the permission from the principals were available were contacted by the research team. Only four schools wanted to implement one or two topics of the programme to their students.

67. Since each school had a different philosophy and operation system, the number of students to participate in the programme was decided by the school. However, 106 students were identified according to the principles and instruments provided by the research team. Scores on group intelligence testing, achievement in mathematics and science, scores on Logical Thinking Test and Science Research Skills Test were utilized as criteria for screening students who would participate in this programme. Regardless of the number of students whose IQ score was above 125, achievement scores on mathematics and science in the top 5% were selected in the first place. Then, the best 10 scorers on Logical Thinking Test and Science Research Skills Test were selected for evaluation of the programme. Each student participated in one of the five topics of the programme. Details of the those who participated in the programme and who were observed is presented in Table III-8.

68. Teacher training was conducted in advance by the research team. Basic approach, contents, goals and objectives, duration, and teaching methods were explained in detail. Necessary equipment, learning materials, and reference books were provided to the teachers. Programmes were implemented for from one to two hours a week during after school hours for two to three months in each school. Scheduling was decided by each individual school.

69. During the programme implementation, researchers observed classes once every two weeks to observe and evaluate the class and provide feedback to teachers about appropriateness of responses to students' questions or behaviour and of instructional methods that teachers employed.

14

Table III-8: Number of students participating in enrichment science programme

Energy (n=10)

Ecology (n=12)

Elec­tricity (n=10)

Earth (n=10)

Ocean (n=10)

Total (n=52)

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

IQ

128,8 9,0

132,0 9.2

146,2 6,9

142,0 7,9

146,0 8,6

138,7 6,2

Math

92,7 4,3

92,4 4,9

18,2 2,3

96,4 2.8

94,8 3,8

*

Science

94,4 2,2

95,7 4,2

24,1 0,7

97,6 2,8

98,9 1.2

*

Logical Thinkinq

15,5 1.5

16,2 2,0

16.4 0,8

17,5 1,3

17,0 1,6

16,5 1,5

Science Research

35,0 1,8

33,8 2,5

33,3 2,4

35,5 1,5

35,3 2,4

34,6 2,1

Legend: * not computed

Evaluation of the programme

70. There was no control group for evaluation of the effect of the programme, because the purpose of this project was to develop the enrichment programme. Therefore, focus of evaluation of the programme in this project was on feasibility, more specifically, identifying problematic aspects or errors in contents or operation of the programme in order to further revise the provided programme. Evaluation of the effects of this programme should be carried out with rigorous experimental design in the future studies.

71. Therefore, data were collected by administering questionnaires to teachers and students who participated in the enrichment programme only. Aspects of evaluation were: structure of the programme, administrative support and operational efficiency of the programme implementation, and effect of the programme. The questionnaires were made up of five-point rating scales, with 1 as negative and 5 positive evaluations. Achievement Tests and Student Product Assessment Form were also used to evaluate students' learning through this programme.

(Hi) Development of evaluation tools

Item construction

- Questionnaires

72. Questionnaires developed and used in advanced countries were collected and analysed considering the Korean educational context and the purpose of gifted education in the science area. Then, sub-areas of programme evaluation were decided on through discussion among science teachers, gifted education specialists, and measurement specialists. Questionnaires for the purpose of collecting information on all the aspects of programme implementation for the scientifically gifted were devised. The sub-areas of programme evaluation were philosophy and purpose of the enrichment programme, identification of gifted students, curriculum, teacher, operation of the programme, and programme effect. Reading level of sentence lengths of the questionnaire for students were adjusted to average students in grades 5 and 6.

15

- Student Product Assessment Form

73. Renzulli's (1977) Student Product Assessment Form (SPAF) was used as a base of the test. However, Renzulli's SPAF could not be used for evaluation of the students' product in this project, because it was originally developed with a purpose of utilizing it for programmes in any discipline area. Some of the items were revised to be appropriate for assessing products in the science area. Some items which include more than one evaluation aspect were revised in such a way that each item measures only one aspect. When two aspects of evaluation are included in one item, evaluation becomes unfocused. More items were included to assess the quality of student product in the science area in a more reliable and valid manner.

74. In a pilot draft form, the SPAF was circulated to evaluation and assessment specialists and a gifted education specialist for critical review on its appropriateness in terms of wording, format, scaling, scoring, and interpreting.

- Achievement Test

75. The test aims to assess the degree students achieved through participating in the programme in terms of knowledge and science research skills. Each subtest of five units, Ocean, Electricity, Ecology, Earth and Energy, consists of 10 problems which require high level thinking such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation upon solving problems on the topics dealt with in the programmes.

76. Science teachers were asked to develop ten test items for each topic. These were developed to measure students' achievement of learning objectives stated in the programme, which are: a) Comprehension of highly complex contents and beyond the prescribed curriculum, b) Ability to work with abstract ideas, theories, and concepts, requiring reflective, creative, and critical thinking, and c) Ability to work with non-graded-level resources.

77. Basic principles of developing test items were as follows:

the difficulty level of items should be distributed from average to difficult for the gifted students; types of test items should include equal numbers of multiple choice, essay and multiple choice with space for stating reasons for the answer chosen, and the items should be able to measure high level thinking processes such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

78. After development of the first draft items by science teachers, all the items were reviewed critically by a gifted education specialist and measurement specialists. Items which did not follow the principles were eliminated and some tests which had too many items of one or two types compared to other types were revised to have all types more evenly. Final test form consisted of 10 to 12 items for each topic of the enrichment programme.

Validation

- Questionnaires

79. Questionnaires were not validated through statistical analyses.

- Student Product Assessment Form

80. Validity of the test was checked by requesting science education specialists to criticize each item in terms of relevance, appropriateness, and significance in assessing science products. Some items which were found to be irrelevant or not very significant for assessing science products were

16

eliminated. For pilot testing of the SPAF, the reliability was checked by asking four teachers to rate six different products produced by students who were not involved in the programme. Then, on the basis of the pilot testing, the scale was changed from a six-point to a five-point rating scale and a few items were revised again.

81. After the final form was decided on, four teachers were asked to use the SPAF for assessing 30 products produced by scientifically gifted students participating in the enrichment programme.

- Achievement Test

82. Pilot testing was administered to 60 scientifically gifted students in grade 7 in Kyung-Ki Science High School. The Science High School students were selected for several reasons such as: a) Students who will be actually tested are those who are taking part in the enrichment programme; they cannot be tested during this pilot testing because of possible practice effects; b) Science High School students in grade 7 can be good substitute students, since they entered into the Science High School only 3 months prior to the pilot testing; c) their level of thinking ability and experience with the concepts and content covered in the enrichment programme should be more similar to the students who participated in the enrichment programme than any other students.

83. Thirty students took the test on two to three topics. For valid scoring and assessment of level of understanding of concepts and conceptual structure, frames of analyses were developed on the basis of responses of the 30 persons who participated in pilot testing. Difficulty level and reliability were evaluated. Test-retest reliability was checked by administering the test to the same students one month after the initial testing. Data was analysed using the SPSSx programme by Spearman Test and Kendall Test.

84. Scoring criteria and test items were revised on the basis of the students' responses and the statistical analyses.

IV. FINDINGS

A. Results of KEDI project

(i) Identification instruments

Validity and reliability coefficients of STRST

85. Subtests and a number of items of each subtest are shown in Table IV-1. The final version of the Logical Thinking Test (LTT) has the following characteristics:

it measures six logical operations: conservation, proportional reasoning, controlling variables, combinatorial reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, and correlational reasoning; multiple-choice format for presenting options for answers as well as the justification or reason for that answer; pictorial representations of real objects in all test items; reading level appropriate to the fifth and sixth grade levels; and test length that permits completion within one class period to a large group by individuals who serve simply as proctors.

86. The final version of Science Research Skills Test (SRST) has the following characteristics:

an emphasis on the skills associated with experimentation, i.e. identifying researchable questions, formulating hypotheses, identifying variables, designing an experiment, recording data, and interpreting data;

17

a multiple choice four option format; an average test readability below the seventh grade level; test length that permits completion within one class period (45 minutes or less); and a wide range of difficulty for items addressing each process skill.

Table IV-1: Number of items of LTT and SRST

Tests

SRST

LTT

Factor

Operational definition Hypothesis identification and verification Variables identification Experimental design Table formulation Graph formulation Conclusion drawinq

Conservation Proportional reasoning Variable control Probabilistic reasoning Correlational reasoning Combinatorial reasoning

Number of items

6 6

8 6 4 4 6

total: 40

4 6 4 2 2 3

total: 21

87. Science Research Skills Test and Logical Thinking Test have 40 and 21 items respectively. Several major findings observed in the process of analysing reliability and validity of the STRST by norm-referenced and criterion-referenced approaches were as follows:

First, internal consistency coefficients for each subtest estimated by Cronbach a and Kuder-Richardson 21 formula ranged from .49 to .74 respectively (Table IV-2).

Second, generalizability coefficients estimated by norm-referenced approach ranged from .62 to .83. By criterion-referenced approach, the estimated generalizability coefficients ranged from 55 to .76 (Table IV-3).

Third, test-retest coefficients ranged from .65 to .79 (Table IV-4).

Table IV-2: Reliability of STRST (K-R 21)

Test

Science Research Skills Test Logical Thinking Test Total

Grade 5 (n=120)

.59

.50

.70

Grade 6 (n=120)

.49

.65

.66

Total (n=240)

.61

.66

.74

18

Table IV-3: Generalizability coefficients by norm-referenced and criterion-referenced approach of STRST

Test

Norm-referenced approach Science Research Skills Test (40) Logical Thinking Test (21) Total

Cri terion-referenced approach Science Research Skills Test (40) Logical Thinking Test (21)

Total

Grade 5 (n=120)

.70

.72

.81

.63

.73

.73

Grade 6 (n=120)

.62

.75

.76

.55

.68

.69

Total (n=240)

.71

.78

.83

.65

.70

.76

Table IV-4: Test-Retest reliability

Test

Science Research Skills

Logical Thinking Test

Items

40

21

m

s d

m

s d

Grade

Test

24.9 6

4.73

7.14

3.00

5 (n=120)

Re­test

25.87

4.70

8.07

3.27

r

.65

.76

Grade 6 (n=120)

Test

28.45

3.96

10.29

3.70

Re­test

28.97

4.01

12.30

3.45

r

.65

.72

Total (n=240)

Test

26.70

4.69

7.93

4.82

Re­test

27.93

4.82

8.72

3.71

r

.71

.79

Fourth, reliability coefficients of the Science Research Skills Test and Logical Thinking Test for grade 5 and 6 students, were respectively calculated by Swaminathan-Hambleton-Algina's method. They ranged from r=.42 to r=.68. The reliability for the total test was r=.69 (see Table IV-5).

Table IV-5: Reliability by criterion-referenced approach (K by Cohen)

Test

Science Research Skills Test Logical Thinking Test

Total

Items

40

21

61

Grade 5 (n=120)

.43

.42

.48

Grade 6 (n=120)

.52

.58

.51

Total (n=240)

.47

.68

.69

Fifth, predictive validity, concurrent validity and inter-correlations between the two subtests were estimated. The two tests explained 8% to 23% of the variance of academic achievement measured one year after the two tests were implemented (see Table IV-6).

19

Table IV-6: Predictive validity of the STRST with Science Achievement Test

Tests

Science Research Skills Test Loqical Thinkinq Test Total

Grade 5 (n=120)

.39

.47

.48

Grade 6 (n=120)

.28

.30

.42

88. Concurrent validity estimated by Pearson's correlation with Science Aptitude Test (1985) ranged from 0.17 to 0.51 (Table IV-7) and another p by Novick ranged from .69 to .84 (Table IV-8). Inter-correlations between the two subtests ranged from .38 to .61 and showed that the two subtests are somewhat independent from each other and at the same time measure some common traits (Table IV-9).

Table IV-7: Concurrent validity between the STRST and Science Aptitude Test by Pearson's correlation coefficients (Science Aptitude Test)

Test

Science Research Skills Test Logical Thinking Test Total

Sub A

.17*

.17*

.19*

Sub B

.41*

.47*

.49*

Sub C

.30*

.28*

.33*

Sub D

.24*

.39*

.34*

Total

.38*

.51*

.49* Legend: Subtest A: Geometric Reasoning, Subtest B:Numeric Seriation,

Subtest C: Making equations, Subtest D: Numeric reasoning

Table IV-8: p by Novick: Test-retest coefficients of STRST

Subfactors

Science Research Skills Test Logical Thinking Test Total

Test M(SD)

9.83 (2.12)

5.00 (2.83)

14.83 (4.34)

Retest M(SD)

10.21 (2.12)

6.16 (3.04)

16.37 (4.46)

r

.69

.79

.84

89. Most of the reliability and validity coefficients were evaluated to be high enough for the test to be used to identify scientifically gifted students in grade 5 and grade 6.

90. Descriptive statistics show that items measuring Science Research Skills Test are easy enough to show negative skewness for both grade 5 and 6 students. Meanwhile items measuring logical thinking skills are difficult for grade 5 students and average for grade 6 students.

20

Table IV-9: Intercorrelation coefficients among subtests of STRST

Subtest

SRST

LTT

Grade 5

SRST LTT Total

1.00 .61* .94*

1.00 .84*

Grade 6

SRST LTT Total

1.00 .38* .84*

1.00 .82*

Total

SRST LTT Total

1.00 .57* .91*

1.00 .85* Legend: * p<.001.

Validity and reliability coefficients related to Science Activities and Interest Inventory

91. There are 46 items included in one Science Activities and Interest Inventory. The number of items in interest in science as an academic subject, attitude toward experiment and inquiry method, participation in science activities, participation in field activities were 16, 18, 5, and 7 respectively.

92. Descriptive statistics showed that the gifted had very high interest in science activities and inquiry method. However, they do not seem to have enough opportunities to participate in science activities and field activities. Interest in science and attitude toward research methods showed negative skewness. These statistics show that they are very interested in science and research methods. However, the scores in science activities and field studies showed normal distribution. This means that their actual participation is relatively lower than their interest (see Table IV-10). There could be reasons for this inconsistent result among the factors. One of them is that there are only a few institutes or places to visit, or there are only a limited number of places and opportunities open for children to participate even though they are interested. Another reason is that school learning focuses more on memorization of factual knowledge than actual experience of nature and field activities.

Table IV-10: Science Activities and Interest Inventory: mean, median, mode, standard error, standard deviation, kurtosis and skewness

Grade

5 (n=420)

6 (n=417)

Total (n=837)

Mean

99.352 (2.16)

100.463 (2.18)

99.906 (2.17)

Median

101.500 (2.21)

101.333 (2.20)

101.396 (2.20)

Mode

106.000 (2.30)

102.000 (2.22)

102.000 (2.22)

SE

.832

.749

.560

SD

17.055 (.37)

15.293 (.33)

16.201 (.35)

Kurto­sis

-.313

-.009

-.152

Skew­ness

-.380

-.281

-.350

93. Reliability test by a norm-referenced measurement approach showed that reliabilities of the SAH are relatively high enough and generalizability to population is also quite high (see Table IV-11).

21

Table IV-11: Generalizability coefficients of SAH

Test

Worm referenced approach Interest in Science Attitude to Experiment Science Activities Field Activities

Total

Cri terion-referenced approach Interest in Science Attitude to Experiment Science Activities Field Activities

Total

Grade 5 (n=125)

.86

.91

.68

.51

.93

.85

.91

.66

.51

.92

Grade 6 (n=125)

.78

.85

.62

.60

.90

.76

.84

.61

.59

.89

Total (n=250)

.83

.89

.65

.55

*

.82

.88

.64

.55

*

Legend: * not computed

Table IV-12: Reliability by criterion-referenced test (K by Cohen)

Subtest (number of items)

Interest in Science (16) Attitude to Experiment (18) Science Activities (5) Field Activities (7)

Total (46)

Grade 5 (n=420)

.57

.34

.63

.24

.46

Grade 6 (n=417)

.59

.54

.53

.50

.49

Total (n=837)

.72

.51

.54

.39

.47

94. Reliability coefficients of the test calculated by Cronbach a was .93 for students in each grade of 5 and 6 and those of subtests ranged from .67 to .90. Generalizability coefficient, which was calculated by a criterion-referenced measurement approach, was .90 for the test and ranged from .51 to .91 for each of the subtest (see Table IV-12). Test-retest reliability was relatively high except for the factor of participation in field activities (see Table IV-13).

Table IV-13: SAH: Mean, SD and test-retest reliability coefficients

Subtest

Mean

SD

r

Interest in Science Test (Retest)

2.24 (2.24)

.44 (.45)

.55

Attitude to Experiment Test (Retest) 2.40 (2.39)

.43 (.46)

.57

Science Activities Test (Retest)

1.99 (2.08)

.53 (.55)

.66

Field Activities Test (Retest)

2.10 (2.14)

.40 (.44)

.56

Total Test (Retest)

2.25 (2.26)

.36 (.39)

.64

22

Table IV-14: Intercorrelations between SAU and STRST (n=837)

STRST SAU

Interest in Science Attitude to Experiment Science Activities Field Activities Total (n=837)

Science Research Skills Test

.03

.07*

.07*

.00

.05

Logical Thinking Test

.07*

_13* * *

.07*

.01

.11***

Total

.07*

.12***

.08** -.01

.10**

95. Concurrent validity assessed by intercorrelation coefficients between the SAII and Science Aptitude Test and those between the SAII and STRST were quite low. There could be various reasons for this such as: a) the homogeneity of the subjects and the narrow range of SAII score; b) Interest in science and logical thinking ability have very little in common; or c) both of the above two reasons. Students who achieved very high scores in the Science Aptitude Test and STRST may not be interested in science as an academic subject, experiment, science activities, and field activities. The result shows that there are only a few students who could solve problems by thinking and who are interested in activities to satisfy their curiosity in science at the same time (see Table IV-14). Intercorrelation coefficients between the test and subtests such as interest in science as an academic subject and research method were r=.89 to .90 respectively and those between the test and subtests such as participation in science activities and field activities were .48 and .61 respectively (see Table IV-15). The interest in science as an academic subject and the attitude toward research method were highly correlated. Probably because there are some practical difficulties in participating in science activities and field activities, even though students are interested in these activities.

Table IV-15: Intercorrelation coefficients among subtests of SAII

Subfactors

A: Interest in Science B: Attitude to Experiment C: Science Activities D: Field Activities

Total

A

1.00

B

.70*** 1.00

C

.31***

.28*** 1.00

D

.40***

. 45***

.30*** 1.00

Total

.89***

.90***

. 48**

.61***

1.00 Legend: *** p<.00l

96. Concurrent validity, p by Novick, calculated by a criterion-referenced approach was relatively low (see Table IV-16).

23

Table IV-16: Intercorrelations between SAH with Science Aptitude Test

Science Aptitude Test

SAH

Interest in Science Attitude to Experiment Science Activities Field Activities Total (n=837)

Geometric Reasoning

.09*

.12***

.06*

-.01 .10***

Numeric Seriation

.05

.10**

.07

.02

.08**

Making Equations

.07*

.11**

.08**

-.01 .09**

Numerical Reasoning

.02

.05

.06

-.03 .04

Total

.08**

.13 * * *

.10**

-.01 .11***

Legend: * p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001

97. As a whole, the validity and reliability of SAH seem to be relatively low to use for identifying the scientifically gifted. It was reasoned that probably the interpretations of the degree of participation level in activities and strength of interest and attitude were quite different among students. In addition, obstacles for pursuing the interest in science activities and field activities exist in real life situations. Since opportunities to participate in these activities could not be offered equally to all children, it was not quite possible to measure their interest and attitude in a fair manner. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to use this inventory for identifying the scientifically gifted in a formal situation. It may be used to gather information for reference only.

Proiect-tvpe Science Problem-Solving Test

98. Major findings as a result of data analyses were as follows:

- First, inter-rater reliability estimated by Scott n was .84, which is very high. This shows that school teachers can evaluate students' performance quite reliably.

- Second, group difference between the extremely gifted and the gifted group was significant at p < 0.01 level for grade 5 and 6 students. This shows that the test can discriminate the extremely gifted from the gifted.

- Third, product-moment correlation coefficients of the Science Problem-Solving Test with Science Research Skills Test and Logical Thinking Test were significant at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 levels respectively. It shows that the Science Problem-Solving Test measures the science problem-solving ability which requires both of the science research skills and logical thinking ability.

99. The instruments can be supported as reliable and valid instruments to measure science talent. All the items appear to be functioning to discriminate among the top level students of science talent in grade 5 and grade 6. Considering the homogeneity of the students who participated in the project, the validity and reliability are high enough to be utilized in the process of identifying scientifically gifted students.

24

Overall evaluation of the identification instruments

100. The STRST and SAH can provide a means for both teachers and researchers to assess science talent of a large number of students. The Project-type Problem-Solving Test can be used to identify those who possess task commitment and creativity in addition to scientific thinking skills. The results can be used by teachers to better understand the science talent of their students and to match instruction and materials accordingly.

101. STRST and SAH should be used first for students who are already recommended by teachers and the top 50% among them should be screened on the basis of the testing results. After that, the Project-type Problem-Solving Test should be used at the final stage to identify those who should be admitted into the special education programme. Interpreting the results of STRST, the scores of Science Research Skills Test and of Logical Thinking Test should be taken separately.

(ii) Enrichment programmes

102. Five units were developed: one in Physics, one in Earth Science, and others in integrated science area with such topics as Ocean, Energy, and Ecology. Each unit consists of objectives, overall characteristics of learning plans, learning activities such as discovery and/or confirming experiments, individual project, creative writing, and references.

103. Evaluative opinions on implementation were collected from students and teachers in terms of a) programme structure, b) preparation and operation of programme, and c) effectiveness of the programme. Overall evaluation data revealed that programme was helpful and powerful in promoting creative thinking and scientific thinking.

104. Firstly, programme structure was evaluated as follows:

a) Teachers and students agreed that the structure of the programme is very systematic, integrative, and complex enough for challenging scientifically gifted students.

b) It is revealed that such aspects as creative problem-solving planning, and individual projects could enhance the scientific knowledge and research skills of students (see Table IV-17 and Table IV-18).

Table IV-17: Programme philosophy and purpose (by teachers)

Evaluation Items

Item 1: Individualized education Item 2: Goal: Creative Problem-Solving Item 3: Goal: Inquisitive attitude

Mean

3.5 4.0 4.3

25

Table IV-18: Curriculum (by teachers and students)

Evaluation Items

- Item 7: Satisfaction of intellectual needs of the gifted

- Item 8: Consistency between objectives and activities

- Item 9: Interdisciplinary approach

- Item 10: Difficulty level - Item 4s Motivating activities - Item 5: Content, Instruction, and Evaluation

Teachers Mean

3.75

4.00

3.75 3.25

Students Mean

3.3

3.43

3.13

105. Secondly, the evaluation results on the preparation and operation of the programme were shown as follows:

a) Teachers were satisfied with the identified gifted, but they suggested that observations on classroom activities such as carrying out discussions and experiments, and follow-up identification after placement in the programme are needed for final selection of the gifted (see Table IV-19).

Table IV-19: Student identification and placement (by teachers and students)

Evaluation Items

Item 4: Giftedness of the identified Item 5: Homogeneity of group Item 6: Follow-up identification

Teachers Mean

4.0 3.5 3.0

Students Mean

3.04 2.94 2.85

Table IV-20: Teachers

Evaluation Items

Item 11: Sufficient In-service training Item 12: Qualification Item 13 : Active teaching Item 14: Sensitive to students needs

Teachers Mean

2.5 2.75 3.5 3.75

Students Mean

3.4 4.0

b) Teachers felt that in-service training was not enough and they were not qualified for teaching the scientifically gifted with the enrichment programme. They were not well acquainted with some concepts and ideas included in the programme and felt under prepared for teaching. Therefore, longer periods of in-service training with more detailed information are in great demand for teacher training in the future. In-service training with more detailed information for a longer period, and hands-on experience oriented is more desirable for novice teachers on gifted education, instead of lectures (see Table IV-20).

c) Both teachers and students wanted to have more time allowed for implementing the programme. This problem was caused by lack of understanding by teachers. The programme should be operated with flexibility in terms of time needed for each teaching-learning activity. However, teachers thought that they had to complete each unit within a certain time period. Since they thought they did not have enough time for each teaching-learning activity, in-depth learning could not occur as intended by the programme developer.

26

d) Students and teachers felt pressured in preparing for the enrichment class. Because of the long history of traditional teaching-learning style, which is lecture and memorization of factual knowledge, teachers and students were not experienced with enrichment programmes which require students to do library research, collect data for experiments, or carry out individual projects. They had to learn new teaching-learner style. In particular, the enrichment programme required teachers and students to be exposed to various resources and high level resources for carrying out projects. This procedure required a great deal of time and effort rather than lecturing and memorization.

e) Interaction between the teacher and students was high during the carrying out of projects and discussions. Even though, the enrichment programme requires students and teachers to invest more time and effort, they participated in the programme quite actively. Compared to lecturing and fact memorization, the enrichment programme is thought to provoke relatively more interaction among students and between students and teacher.

Table IV-21: Programme operation and organization

Evaluation Items

Item 15: Number of students in group Item 16: Time spent for activities Item 17: Variety of resources Item 18: Variety of activities Item 19: Students' active participation Item 20: In-depth project Item 21: Interaction among members Item 22: Administrative support Item 23: Appropriateness of post evaluation

Teachers Mean

3.0 2.5 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.75 3.75 3.75 4.25

Students Mean

3.3 2.5

3.0 3.17

106. Thirdly, effectiveness of the programme was evaluated as follows:

a) Teachers thought that the quality of the programme was excellent and they were very active in teaching students with this programme. However, they felt that they had not achieved learning objectives satisfactorily due to the limited time allowed. However, this problem was caused because teachers did not understand the nature of the programme, which can be implemented with a great flexibility depending on the students' interest and needs. Therefore, this problem can be solved with better in-service training on the nature of the programme. Teachers evaluated that students improved their knowledge in each topic (4.8), creative problem-solving ability (4.0), intellectual curiosity (3.8), logical thinking ability (3.8), task commitment (3.5), and co-operative working ability among students (3.5).

b) Students were very positive about learning experiences with the enrichment programme, especially as they were allowed to carry out discussions and to choose their own research topics and methods for their individual projects. Students evaluated themselves on the improvement in knowledge in each topic (3.5) co-operative working ability (3.4) and positive attitude toward science (3.3) and need to participate in this kind of enrichment programme for the gifted.

107. As a whole, teachers evaluated the quality of the programme and its effect more positively than students did. Teachers and students evaluated the philosophy, purpose, curriculum, organization and operation of the programme quite positively. Especially, teachers stated that they participated in teaching very actively and interaction with students increased, in-depth learning has occurred, and contributed to enhance students' creative problem-solving ability. Students stated that they would like to participate in this kind of enrichment programme again, if opportunity is provided in the future.

27

Table IV-22: Effects of programme on enhancing students' ability

Evaluation Items

Creative Problem-solving Logical thinking Knowledge in topic area Interest in science Task commitment Communication ability Cooperative attitude Continuous participation

Teachers Mean

4.0 3.8 4.8

3.5 3.0 3.5

Students Mean

3.0 3.2 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.5

108. Some aspects to be revised or improved were discovered during the implementation of the programme as follows: Firstly the programme was found to be more appropriate for the higher grades. The level of difficulty was more appropriate for scientifically gifted students in grade 8 and 9. Practically, students in grade 9 may not be willing to participate in the enrichment programme, because they would like to spend more time preparing for school examinations instead of spending time on the programme which may not contribute to gaining higher scores in the school exams. This problem cannot be solved without the introduction of new entrance examination systems not only in the schools but also entrance examinations to universities.

109. Secondly, identification of students who will be provided with this kind of enrichment programme should always consider students' interest in science or their experience in science activities. In this project, students were selected on the basis of their IQ scores, academic achievement, scores on Logical Thinking Test and Science Research Skills Test. Some of the identified students did not participate in the programme actively. Although definition of the scientifically gifted include the affective aspect such as task commitment from the beginning of the project, there was no good instrument to assess this aspect. SAH, which was developed in this project showed very low concurrent validity coefficients, therefore, this aspect was not considered in identifying the scientifically gifted.

110. Thirdly, teachers needed more intensive in-service training before they start implementing this programme for the scientifically gifted. Teachers stated that they were not qualified enough to implement this kind of enrichment programme. In-service training workshops can be more effective than lecture style training. Because Korean teachers are quite used to lecture-style teaching-learning activities, they need hands-on experience in the enrichment programme or process-product research model for teaching-learning.

(Hi) Development of evaluation tools

Questionnaires

111. Three different questionnaires were devised: a questionnaire for teachers to be used for the evaluation of goodness of any gifted education programme before use; two questionnaires, one for students and another for teachers to be used for the evaluation of the efficiency and effects of the gifted education programme after implementation.

112. They are designed for data collection needed for improvement of the gifted education programme in addition to decision-making by school administrators, or government on whether or not they are going to continue to implement the gifted education programme or not. The questionnaires were developed to help either outside evaluators or teachers who are involved with programme implementation to collect data which will provide them with feedback information on such various aspects as philosophy, goals and

28

objectives, operations such as teacher in-service training, identification, grouping, audio-visual materials, teacher-student interaction, special activities, and achievement or effectiveness in terms of enhancing students' positive attitude toward science, curiosity, perseverance, etc.

113. Questionnaires for parents were eliminated because the experience of previous years informed researchers that they generally do not actively participate in making decisions on programme selection and administration. Therefore, they were relying on schools to make decisions about programme selection and administration.

Table IV-23: Number of items of each questionnaire

Sub Area

Philosophy, purpose Identification Curriculum Teacher Operation Programme effect Others Total

Pre Evaluation (Teachers)

3 4 4 3 4 0 0

18

Post Evaluation (Teachers)

3 3 4 4 9 7 2

32

Post Evaluations (Students)

0 3 3 2 9 8 3

28

114. Responses were to be made on Likert-type scale with open space for any opinion to be described freely. The number of items for each different sub-area of evaluation for teachers and students are shown in Table IV-23. The questionnaires are not validated using statistical analyses.

Student Product Assessment Form

115. The Friedman test showed that the ranks four teachers rated on each project were almost identical and there were only three items which showed significant differences among raters at the p <.05 level (see Table IV-24).

Table IV-24: Inter-rater reliability measured by intraclass correlation coefficients and Friedman test

Item

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13

Total

Intraclass Correlation

.59

.46

.73

.70

.70

.86

.80

.72

.88

.83

.78

.65

.69

.84

Friedman Test x2 df p

12.3 3 .006 0.3 3 .96 7.5 3 .06 11.5 3 .09 0.5 3 .92 1.7 3 .63 2.2 3 .53 3.8 3 .28 3.9 3 .27 0.4 3 .94 12.4 3 .006 2.7 3 .44 10.6 3 .01

8.2 3 .04

29

116. In addition, the Guilford's intraclass correlation coefficients also ranged from .46 to .88 showing that the ranks among 4 raters were quite similar to each other, therefore quite reliable except for two items. One of the two items was about the degree of creativity of the ideas compared to his/her age. On this item, teachers found it difficult to know the relative creativity of students compared to their age group. The other item was about whether the idea was specific enough to carry out the experiment or project without practical problems. Teachers had difficulty in knowing how specific is specific enough to carry out the project, because teachers themselves may not have had enough experience of Investigating problems. Number of items for each sub evaluation area is shown in Table IV-25.

Table IV-25: Number of Items of Student Product Assessment Form

Evaluation Area

Objectives of project, Selection of topic Research Methods and procedures Interpretation of Data and Reporting Others

Total

Number of Items

3 6 2 2

13

Achievement test (paper-pencil test)

117. Each test of five topics. Ocean, Energy, Ecology, Electricity, and Earth, consists of 10 problems which require high level thinking such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation upon solving problems on the topics dealt with in the programme. Some items are multiple choice tests with open space for writing their reasons for choosing a certain option and some are essay-type tests (see Table IV-26).

Table IV-26: Number of Items of Achievement Tests

Name of topics

Energy and our life (1) Circulation of energy in

nature (2) Transformation of energy (3) Energy, Fuel, Food shortage (4) How to cope with energy

crisis Subtotal

Our earth (1) Observation of rock (2) Geological events (3) Volcano and earthquake (4) Movement of land under the

sea Subtotal

Multiple Choice with free state­ment of reasons

2 2

1

Inter­pretat­ion of Data, Table, Graph

1 1

1 1

Essay

3 1 3 1

1 1 1

Total

4 2 3 1 10

1 4 4

1 10

30

Human and ecology (1) Ecology of lake (2) Investigations of organs (3) Pollution of ecology Subtotal

Electricity and its use (1) Visiting power plant (2) Generator and dry cell (3) Current and electricity (4) Current and magnet field Subtotal Secret of Ocean (1) Overview of ocean (2) Characteristics of ocean (3) Movement of sea water Subtotal

Total

1 1 2

1 2 1

1 1 4

19

1

1

6

1 2 1

1 1

1 1 1 9

20

2 4 3 9

1 3 2 1 7

2 2 5

45

118. Reliability coefficients of five achievement tests for each of the five different topics was confirmed to be high enough to be used in assessing the students' improvement in high level thinking ability to solve content-bound problems instead of assessing the basic level thinking ability, such as knowledge acquisition and understanding concepts. There are ten items of essay-type problem generally for each achievement test in each topic area.

119. Their test-retest reliabilities were found to be significant at the p < .001 level ranging from r=.4 to r=.9. This shows that the achievement tests are quite reliable in assessing students' comprehension of concepts covered in each topic and their high level thinking (see Table IV-27).

Table IV-27: Test-retest reliability measured by Spearman and Kendall Test

Topics

Energy and our life Our earth Electricity and use

Test 1 Mean SD

33.5 (9.8) 50.1 (9.9) 24.1 (2.7)

Test 2 Mean SD

39.6 (9.3) 46.3 (9.5) 27.0 (3.5)

Spearman r(p)

0.8*** 0.6*** 0.9***

Kendall r(p)

0.6*** 0.4*** 0.9***

Legend: *** p< .001

B. Results of KIT Project

(i) Development of teachers' guide

120. Contents included in the two books for science high school teachers and KIT professors were quite similar to each other except for one chapter. The contents of the two teachers' guides are as follows (Chapter 8 is included only in the teachers' guide for KIT professors):

Chapter 1 : Introduction (1) The Necessity of Education of Scientifically Gifted Students (2) Purposes and Contents of this Book

Chapter 2: Concepts and Characteristics of Scientifically Gifted Students (1) Ability (2) Creativity (3) Task commitment

31

Chapter 3: Identification of Scientifically Gifted Students (1) Overview (2) Steps in the Identification Process (3) Examples in Foreign Countries Chapter 4 : Planning of Programmes

Chapter 5: Roles and Teaching Strategies of Teachers in Education of Scientifically Gifted Students (1) General Characteristics of Successful Teachers (2) Teaching Strategies for Scientifically Gifted Students

Chapter 6: Education for Developing Creative Thinking (1) Importance of Creative Thinking (2) What is Creativity? (3) Purposes of Creative Education (4) Education for Developing Creative Thinking Chapter 7: Evaluation (1) Purposes and Significance of Evaluation (2) Formative Evaluation and Summative Evaluation (3) Principles of How to Evaluate a Programme for Gifted Education Chapter 8: Science High Schools in USA (1) Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (2) Bronx High School of Science

(ii) Nationwide symposium on the education of scientifically gifted students

121. The Symposium was held to develop ideas on Korea's present situation in the education of the scientifically gifted and where its gifted educational policy has to go. In that symposium, four lecturers and eight debaters were invited. The four topics in the symposium were the following:

a) Scientifically Gifted Education in Elementary School b) Scientifically Gifted Education in Secondary School c) Future Direction of Science High Schools d) Scientifically Gifted Education in Higher Education

(Hi) In-service teacher training

122. Using the teachers' guides developed through this project, in-service training was conducted for a number of science teachers in Science High Schools and KAIST professors in the area of science. Some excellent teachers in Science High Schools and KAIST professors were given the opportunity to attend in-service training abroad to observe and gather information about gifted education in advanced countries such as the United States (USA) and Canada. No formal evaluation about the effect of in-service training was carried out after in-service training.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

123. Through this project, various materials for identification of, educating and evaluating the programme for the scientifically gifted at regular junior high schools were developed, validated, and disseminated to regular junior high schools. Teachers' guides were also developed for science high school teachers and professors at KAIST.

124. As identification instruments, the Logical Thinking Test, Science Research Skills Test, Science Activities and Interest Inventory and Project-type Science Problem-Solving Test were developed. Among them, the Logical

32

Thinking Test and Science Research Skills Test are recommended to be used the most frequently because they can be administered easily and their scoring and interpretation does not require professional ability.The project-type Science Problem-Solving Test is appropriate for assessing students science ability in an integrative manner. However, it requires a great deal of time, expense, and personnel to administer the test. Science Activities and Interest Inventory may not be used widely, not because it requires time and expense, but because its reliability and validity was not confirmed at a satisfactory level. The Logical Thinking Test and Science Research Skills Test was published and disseminated to schools by commercial publisher.

125. The enrichment programme was developed covering five topics: Energy and our life, Human and Ecology, Electricity and its use, Our earth, and Secret of Ocean. It was field tested for two to three months in schools with 52 students to identify any aspects which needed to be revised or corrected. Emphasis of this programme was on enriching students' experience in science through various activities such as: library search, discussion, various experiments, and individual or small group projects. The programme requires students to employ high level thinking processes for problem-solving instead of basic thinking skills. Teachers evaluated the structure of the programme positively, stating that it stimulates and challenges students to think logically and creatively. However, it was a heavy burden for teachers to project and prepare for the class, because they were not used to this kind of enrichment programme. Teachers without intensive training on gifted education and without enough time to prepare for the class felt quite unqualified to teach the scientifically gifted according to the programme provided by the research team.

126. Both teachers and students positively evaluated its effect on improving students' creative problem-solving ability, knowledge on each topic, co-operative working ability, communication skills, task commitment, interest in science, and logical thinking. However, the effect of the enrichment programme should be evaluated through further study with more students and a longer period of implementation of the programme. In this project, the focus of evaluation of the programme was on feasibility testing, and therefore, rigorous evaluation of the programme was not intended.

127. The programme was disseminated freely to all the junior high schools in the Republic of Korea by the Ministry of Education in 1992 to encourage schools to provide enrichment programmes in all junior high schools. Upon reviewing the programme, there were critics and positive reinforcements at the same time from teachers and from various educational organizations.

128. Education of the scientifically gifted should start as early as at the elementary school level, if possible. Currently, there are a few elementary schools and school boards which attempt to provide enrichment programmes to gifted students. However, there are no well-developed enrichment programmes for the gifted at the elementary school level. More programmes should be developed for the scientifically gifted at the junior high school level and elementary school level at the same time. This programme can function as an example of an enrichment programme for the scientifically gifted and stimulate other curriculum developers and educators to develop better enrichment programmes.

129. There are few girls, probably 3 to 10% identified and following gifted education programmes in each science high school. Efforts should be made to widen the opportunities for gifted girls to be identified, to follow special education programmes and to be employed in the science sector as well as in other areas.

130. Teachers' guides were developed for the science high school teachers and KAIST professors and disseminated by KAIST. In-service training for the science teachers and professors was carried out for about 100 people. However, it was pointed out that it is necessary to provide in-service and pre-service training in gifted education through workshops instead of lectures and reading books. In addition, teachers' qualifications cannot be improved within a short period of time through one shot in-service training.

33

Therefore, more educational institutions should offer courses on gifted education for continuous training of teachers who are interested in this area.

131. A nationwide symposium was also carried out with the intention of enhancing the public's awareness on the necessity of gifted education to fulfil individual and national needs to develop. However, more effort is needed to continuously publicize the issue of gifted education through mass media such as TV, radio, and newspapers.

13 2. The Government of the Republic of Korea addressed these problems and requested UNDP's assistance in providing fellowship training abroad for a cadre of teachers and researchers as well as consultant assistance in the development of identification instruments, special programmes and evaluation for gifted education.

133. Teachers' guides, identification instruments and programmes developed in this project were distributed to all school systems in the Republic of Korea to be utilized in establishing programmes for the scientifically gifted in regular junior and senior high schools. It is envisaged, therefore, that this project will result in the wider implementation of appropriate educational experiences for developing the potential of scientifically gifted students in the Republic of Korea leading to a higher level of science technology development in the near future.

134. Fellowship training abroad developed self-reliance in administration, provision and development of educational programming for gifted students, as well as establishing an initial base leading to teachers training programmes for the scientifically gifted in the Republic of Korea.

135. The transfer of expertise to other countries in Asia should be considered.

34

Annex A

UNESCO Consultants

Name

M. HIROSE (Japan) Identification of the Scientifically Gifted for KEDI

C. YEWCHUK (Canada) Educational Programming for the Scientifically Gifted for KEDI

R. MULCAHY (Canada) Education for Scientifically Gifted Students for KIT

G. GOOD (USA)

E. TOTH (Hungary)

G. MARX (Hungary)

K. HELLER (Germany)

Starting Date of Contract

April 1989

December 1990

December 1987 April 1988 May 1989

July 1991

August 1991

August 1991

November 1991

35

Annex B

Fellowships and Study Grants

Name

CHOI, Don-Hyung

IM, Seon-Ha

KIM, Young-Min

KIM, Yang-Boon

CHOI, Don-Hyung

LEE, Koon-Hyon

K A N G , Kyung Sook

KIM, Gyu-Hwan

K A N G , Kea Won

LEE, Bong Hi

W E E , Dang-Moon

YU, Pyung U

K W A K , Byong-Sun

C H O , Seo-Kee

LEE, Koon-Hyon

LEE, Dai-Woo

SON, Young-Silc

SIN, Sang-Deok

PARK, Seung-Jae

Field of Study

Gifted identification

Gifted identification

Gifted education programming

Gifted education programming

Gifted education programming

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifcally gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Gifted education programming

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Start

01.07.88

01.07.88

01.09.89

01.09.89

01.01.89

11.07.88

02.04.89

05.03.89

11.02.89

30.11.88

30.11.88

29.11.88

17.04.89

03.04.89

01.04.89

01.04.89

01.04.89

01.04.89

01.04.89

Duration

6 months

6 months

6 months

6 months

6 months

1 month & 6 days

3 weeks

3 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

Country of Study

Canada

Canada

USA

USA

Canada

USA & Canada

Canada

Canada

USA

USA

USA

USA

USSR

Israel

USA

USA

USA

USA

USA

Host Institution

University of Alberta

University of Alberta

Univeristy of North Carolina

University of North Carolina

University of Alberta

Purdue Univ. Univ. of Toronto

University of Alberta

University of Alberta

Stanford University

D u k e University

M . I . T .

John Hopkins University

Univ. of Novosibirsk

Ypipas

Purdue University

Purdue University

Purdue University

Purdue University

Purdue University

36

C H O , Seokee

CHOI, Don-Hyung

LEE, Chul-Kee

C H O , Seo-Kee

JEON, Kyung-Won

H A N , Jong-Ha

| C H O , Seokee

| PARK, Sunghee

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

Education of scientifically gifted

E d . Policy/Prog, for gifted students

E d . Policy/Prog for gifted students

Education of scientifically gifted

Gifted education

Gifted education

15.07.90

15.07.90

15.07.90

17.08.90

14.08.90

27.05.91

05.06.91

05.06.91

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

3 days

6 days

9 days

9 days

9 days

Hungary

Hungary

Hungary

Philippines

Philippines

USA

USA

USA

Jaszbereny D International 1 Workshop |

Jaszbereny International Workshop

Jaszbereny International Workshop

S . E . A . R e g . Conf.

S . E . A . R e g . Conf

Pacific Science Congress

Josiah Quincy School

Josiah Quincy School

37

References

Bloom.B.S., Hastings,J.T & Madaus,&.F. (1971). Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Blurton, C.(1983). Science talent: The elusive gift. School Science and Mathematics, 83(8), 654-664.

Cho, S.& Kim, Y.B. (1988). Construction and validation of instruments for identifying the scientifically gifted, Regular Research Report 88-3, Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.

Cho, S.& Kim, Y.B. (1989)1 Validation of identification instruments for the scientifically gifted, Regular Research Report 89-6, Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.

Cho, S., Kim, Y.M., Jeon, K.W.& Parkl S.H. (1990). Development of science enrichment program for scientifically gifted junior high school student, Regular Research Report 90-2, Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.

Cho, S., Han, J.& Parkl S.H.(1991). Development of evaluation instruments or improvement of special education programs for the scientifically gifted, KEDI Regular Research Report 91-10, Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.

Davis, G. A & Rimm,S.B.(1985). Education of the Gifted And Talented. Prentice -Hall, Inc.

Matin, K. (1979). Science and the Gifted Adolescent. Roeper Review 2(2), 25-26.

Reis, S.M & Renzulli, J.S. (1985). The secondary triad model: A practical plan for implementing gifted programs of the junior and senior high school levels, Connecticut: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Renzulli, J.S.(1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Bureau of Educational Research University of Connecticut.

Renzulli, J.S.(1986), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Conn: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Renzulli, J.S.& S. M. Reis (1985). The school-wide enrichment modes: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Conn: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Renzulli, J.S.(1972). The confessions of a frustrated evaluator, Measurement and evaluation in guidance, 5, 298-305.

Renzulli, J.S & Ward, V.S. (1969). Diagnostic and Evaluative Scales for Differential Education for the Gifted. Storrs: university of Connecticut.

Rimm, S. (1977). A comprehensive framework for total educational evaluation. Forward, Journal of the Wisconsin Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Fall, 1977, 9-18.

Sato, I.S., & Johnson, B. (1978), Multifaceted training meets multidimensionally gifted. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 12, 63-71.

Scriven, M.(1967). Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No.l. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Stake, R.E. (1967). Test better finder of great math talent than teachers are. American Psychologist, 31, 313-14.

Sternberg, R.J (1982). Teaching Scientific Thinking to Gifted Children. Roeper Review, 4(4), 4-6.

Stufflebeam, D.L et al, (1971). Educational Evaluation and Decision Making, Itasca, Illinois, F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Wilde, W.D & Sillito, M. T.(1986). Educating The Gifted: Evaluation Components. Prepared under contract to Alberta Education.

38