The aim of this study was to determine the conceptual structures of exceptionally talented students about chemical change through the use of word associations. The study was conducted with 13 exceptionally talented students in seventh grade who were attending a science and art center located in a province in western Turkey. Data were collected with the help of a word association test (WAT) that involved eight concepts developed by the researchers and were analyzed qualitatively. The study comprised a pretest application of WAT, science activities, and a posttest. The results showed that the activities conducted improved the students’ conceptual structures about chemical change. It might be recommended that such extracurricular activities be employed to support the development of the conceptual understanding of exceptionally talented students.
AhteeMVarjolaI (1998) Students’ understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education20(3): 305–316.
2.
AsokoH (2002) Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education32(2): 153–164.
3.
BaharMJohnstoneAHSutcliffeRG (1999) Investigation of students’ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education33(3): 134–141.
4.
BaharMÖzatlıNS (2013) Kelime iletişim test yöntemi ile lise 1. sınıf öğrencilerinin canlıların temel bileşenleri konusundaki bilişsel yapılarının araştırılması [The investigation of cognitive structures of high school 1st year students about basic components of living organisms with word association test technique]. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi5(2): 75–85.
5.
Baykoç DönmezN (2014) Üstün; akıl, zeka, deha, yetenek, dahiler-savantlar gelişimleri ve eğitimleri [Gifted, mind, intelligence, talent, genius, savants’ development and education]. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
6.
BenlikayaR (2003) Öğrenme çevrimi modelinin kimyasal kinetik ünitesine uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi [Application and evaluation of learning cycle model into chemical kinetic unit]. Master’s Thesis, Balıkesir University, Turkey.
7.
BooHKWatsonJR (2001) Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education85: 568–585.
8.
BüyüköztürkŞÇakmakEKAkgünÖE, et al. (2010) Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific Research Methods], 6th ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
9.
CakmakciGAydogduC (2011) Designing and evaluating an evidence-informed instruction in chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice12: 15–28.
10.
CaleonISSubramaniamR (2008) Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching45(8): 940–954.
11.
ÇalıkMAyasA (2005) A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching42(6): 638–667.
12.
CallahanCMHertberg-DavisHL (2013) Beliefs, philosophies and definitions. In: CallahanCMHertberg-DavisHL (eds) Fundamentals of Gifted Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 13–20.
13.
ChildsPEHayesSMO’dwyerA (2015) Chemistry and everyday life: relating secondary school chemistry to the current and future lives of the students. In: EilksIHofsteinA (eds) Relevant Chemistry Education: From Theory to Practice. Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp. 33–54.
14.
CoatesD (2006) ‘Science is not my thing’: primary teachers’ concerns about challenging gifted pupils. Education 3-1334(1): 49–64.
15.
DemircioğluHVuralSDemircioğluG (2012) “React” stratejisine uygun hazırlanan materyalin üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin başarısı üzerine etkisi [The effect of teaching material developed based on react strategy on gifted students’ achievement]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi31(2): 101–144.
16.
DermanAEilksI (2016) Using a word association test for the assessment of high school students’ cognitive structures on dissolution. Chemical Education Research and Practice17: 902–913.
17.
ErcanF (2013) Fen alaninda üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin tanilanmasina yönelik bir model geliştirme önerisi [Proposal for a model development in diagnosing of gifted students in the field of science]. PhD Thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal University, Turkey.
18.
ErcanFTaşdereAErcanN (2010) Kelime ilişkilendirme testi aracılığıyla bilişsel yapının ve kavramsal değişimin gözlenmesi [Observing cognitive structure and conceptual change via word association test]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi7(2): 136–154.
19.
GatesJ (2010) Children with gifts and talents: looking beyond traditional labels. Roeper Review32(3): 200–206.
20.
GussarskyEGorodetskyM (1988) On the chemical equilibrium concept: constrained word associations and conception. Journal of Research in Science Teaching25: 319–333.
21.
GussarskyEGorodetskyM (1990) On the concept “chemical equilibrium”: the associative framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching27: 197–204.
22.
HanKS (2007) The possibilities and limitations of gifted education in Korea: a look at the ISEP science-gifted education center. Asia Pacific Education Review8(3): 450–463.
23.
HovardasTKorfiatisKJ (2006) Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science education. Learning and Instruction16: 416–432.
24.
JohnsonP (2000) Children’s understanding of substances, part 1: recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education22(7): 719–737.
25.
KostovaZRadoynovskaZ (2008) Word association test for studying conceptual structures of teachers and students. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP)2(2): 209–231.
26.
McMillanJH (2004) Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
27.
MammadovS (2015) Current policies and policy efforts for the education of gifted children in Turkey. Roeper Review37(3): 139–149.
28.
MarlandSP (1972) Education of the Gifted and Talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
MaskillRCachapuzAFCKoulaidisV (1997) Young pupils’ ideas about the microscopic nature of matter in three different European countries. International Journal of Science Education19(6): 631–645.
30.
Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2015) Bilim ve sanat merkezleri yönergesi ile bilim ve sanat merkezlerine öğretmen seçme ve atama kılavuzu [Instruction of science and art center and manual of teacher selection and assignment to science and art centers]. Tebliğler Dergisi78(2698): 1273–1297.
31.
ÖzatlıNSBaharM (2010) Öğrencilerin boşaltım sistemi konusundaki bilişsel yapılarının yeni teknikler ile ortaya konması [Revealing students’ cognitive structures regarding excretory system by new techniques]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Dergisi10(2): 9–26.
32.
PapageorgiouGGrammaticopoulouMJohnsonPM (2010) Should we teach primary pupils about chemical change?International Journal of Science Education32(12): 1647–1664.
33.
PfeifferSI (2002) Identifying gifted and talented students. Journal of Applied School Psychology19(1): 31–50.
34.
PolatG (2013) 9. sınıf öğrencilerinin çevreye ilişkin bilişsel yapılarının kelime ilişkilendirme test tekniği ile tespiti [Determination of the cognitive structures of year 9 secondary school students through word association test techniques]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED)7(1): 97–120.
35.
RenzulliJS (2012) Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: a four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly56(3): 150–159.
36.
RobinsonNM (1997) The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education72(3): 217–236.
37.
SaglamYOzbekM (2016) Children’s conceptual development: a long-run investigation. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health2(2): 145–159.
38.
ŞahinAAyarMCAdıgüzelT (2014) Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik içerikli okul sonrası etkinlikler ve öğrenciler üzerindeki etkileri [STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri14(1): 297–322.
39.
SakU (2014) Üstün Zekalılar Özellikleri Tanılanmaları Eğitimleri [Gifted Students’ Characteristics, Determination, Education], 4th ed. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
40.
SarıHÖğülmüşK (2014) Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinde (BİLSEM) karşılaşılan sorunların öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the problems faced by teachers and students in science and art centers]. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi2(2): 254–265.
41.
SchieverSWMakerCJ (2003) New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In: ColangeloNDavisGA (eds) Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 163–173.
42.
SchizasDKatranaEStamouG (2012) Introducing network analysis into science education: methodological research examining secondary school students’ understanding of “decomposition”. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education8(1): 175–198.
43.
ŞenolC (2011) Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM örneği) [Views of teachers about gifted curriculum (case of BİLSEM)]. Master’s Thesis, Fırat University, Turkey.
44.
SirhanG (2007) Learning difficulties in chemistry: an overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education4(2): 2–20.
45.
SolsonaNIzquierdoMDe JongO (2003) Exploring the development of students’ conceptual profiles of chemical change. International Journal of Science Education25(1): 3–12.
46.
StainsMTalanquerV (2007) Classification of chemical substances using particulate representations of matter: an analysis of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education29(5): 643–661.
47.
StakeJEMaresKR (2001) Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching38(10): 1065–1088.
48.
SubotnikRFOlszewski-KubiliusPWorrellFC (2011) Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: a proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest12(1): 3–54.
49.
TsaparlisG (2003) Chemical phenomena versus chemical reactions: do students make the connection?Chemistry Education Research and Practice4(1): 31–43.
50.
ÜrekH (2012) Üstün zekalı olan ve olmayan ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fene ve bilime karşı algı ve tutumlarının karşılaştırılması [Comparison of intellectually gifted and non-gifted students’ perceptions and attitudes toward science]. Master’s Thesis, Balıkesir University, Turkey.
51.
ÜrekH (2017) Kimyasal değişim temalı farklılaştırılmış etkinliklerin 7. sınıf özel yetenekli öğrencilerin kavramsal anlamalarına ve farkındalıklarına etkisi [The effect of differentiated activities about chemical change theme on 7th grade special talented students’ conceptual understandings and awareness]. PhD Thesis, Balıkesir University, Turkey.
52.
ÜrekHDoluG (2016) Conceptual understandings of seventh grade gifted students regarding several situations involving chemical changes. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World6(1): 22–32.
53.
UzunNÖzsoySKeleşÖ (2010) Öğretmen adaylarının biyolojik çeşitlilik kavramına yönelik görüşleri [Pre-service teachers’ views about the concept of biodiversity]. Biyoloji Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi3(1): 85–91.
54.
WallaceP (2005) Distance education for gifted students: leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies16(1): 77–86.
55.
WattersJJDiezmannCM (2003) The gifted student in science: fulfilling potential. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal49(3): 46–53.
56.
WeinrichMLTalanquerV (2015) Mapping students’ conceptual modes when thinking about chemical reactions used to make a desired product. Chemistry Education Research and Practice16: 561–577.
57.
YanFTalanquerV (2015) Students’ ideas about how and why chemical reactions happen: mapping the conceptual landscape. International Journal of Science Education37(18): 3066–3092.
58.
YongWUZhichengMA (2009) Principles and practices report on online enrichment and extension for the gifted and talented. Canadian Social Science5(1): 112–118.
