GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE ON ALGORITHMIC, CONCEPTUAL, AND GRAPHICAL QUESTIONS

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Baltic Science Education Pub Date : 2023-08-25 DOI:10.33225/jbse/23.22.600
Fatma Coştu
{"title":"GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE ON ALGORITHMIC, CONCEPTUAL, AND GRAPHICAL QUESTIONS","authors":"Fatma Coştu","doi":"10.33225/jbse/23.22.600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several studies compared three different types of questions (conceptual, algorithmic, and graphical) across various topics, however, few focused specifically on gifted students. This study addressed this gap. The aim of the study, hence, was to determine whether there were notable differences in gifted students’ performance in the three types of tests. The study involved 115 gifted students aged between 17 and 18 years old. They responded to the three different tests including 10 test items in each with the same content. Significant differences were observed in their performances between the conceptual versus algorithmic in favour of the conceptual test, the conceptual versus graphical in favour of the conceptual test, and the algorithmic versus graphical in favour of the algorithmic test. Moreover, the statistical analysis results revealed that the students performed markedly poorer performance on the graphical test in comparison to both the algorithmic and conceptual tests. These results suggest the need to enhance students' graphical skills to facilitate a better understanding of physics concepts. Proper steps should be taken to improve their proficiency in interpreting and analysing graphical representations.\nKeywords: algorithmic understanding, conceptual understanding, graphical understanding, gifted students, physics education","PeriodicalId":46424,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Baltic Science Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Baltic Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.600","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several studies compared three different types of questions (conceptual, algorithmic, and graphical) across various topics, however, few focused specifically on gifted students. This study addressed this gap. The aim of the study, hence, was to determine whether there were notable differences in gifted students’ performance in the three types of tests. The study involved 115 gifted students aged between 17 and 18 years old. They responded to the three different tests including 10 test items in each with the same content. Significant differences were observed in their performances between the conceptual versus algorithmic in favour of the conceptual test, the conceptual versus graphical in favour of the conceptual test, and the algorithmic versus graphical in favour of the algorithmic test. Moreover, the statistical analysis results revealed that the students performed markedly poorer performance on the graphical test in comparison to both the algorithmic and conceptual tests. These results suggest the need to enhance students' graphical skills to facilitate a better understanding of physics concepts. Proper steps should be taken to improve their proficiency in interpreting and analysing graphical representations. Keywords: algorithmic understanding, conceptual understanding, graphical understanding, gifted students, physics education
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
资优学生在算法、概念和图形问题上的表现
有几项研究比较了不同主题的三种不同类型的问题(概念、算法和图形),然而,很少有研究专门针对资优学生。这项研究解决了这一差距。因此,本研究的目的是确定资优学生在这三种测试中的表现是否存在显著差异。这项研究涉及115名年龄在17到18岁之间的天才学生。他们对三个不同的测试做出了反应,每个测试包含10个相同内容的测试项目。在支持概念测试的概念与算法、支持概念测试的概念与图形以及支持算法测试的算法与图形之间的表现中观察到显着差异。此外,统计分析结果显示,与算法和概念测试相比,学生在图形测试中的表现明显较差。这些结果表明,需要提高学生的图形技能,以促进更好地理解物理概念。应采取适当步骤,提高他们解释和分析图形表示的熟练程度。关键词:算法理解,概念理解,图形理解,资优学生,物理教育
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Baltic Science Education
Journal of Baltic Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
LEARNING STYLES OF A STORY ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY: THEIR EFFECT ON THE LEVEL OF QUESTIONING OF STUDENTS IN PRIMARY EDUCATION MODERATING ROLE OF SCIENCE SELF-CONCEPT IN ELICITING STATE CURIOSITY WHEN CONFRONTING A VIOLATION OUTCOME IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION OF BUOYANCY THROUGH ENHANCING THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF BUOYANCY BREAKING GENDER STEREOTYPES: HOW INTERACTING WITH STEM PROFESSIONALS CHANGED FEMALE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS EFFECTS OF MULTIMEDIA APPLICATION ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1