The Effect of Digital Activities on the Technology Awareness and Computational Thinking Skills of Gifted Students (eTwinning Project Example)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of interdisciplinary activities organised online within the scope of an eTwinning project carried out with gifted students on the students’ technology awareness and computational thinking (CT). The study was carried out through web-based tools for a period of 3 months in the year 2020. A single-group pretest-posttest design, one of the pre-experimental designs, was used in the study. The participants were 50 gifted students continuing their education at Science and Art Centres affiliated to the National Education Ministry in 6 different provinces of Anatolia. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used together in the study. A technology awareness and computational thinking scale was chosen as the quantitative data collection tool, while mind maps were used as the qualitative data collection tool. As a result of the research, a significant increase in the participants’ technology awareness and computational thinking was determined in favour of the posttest, while this increase was verified through the mind-mapping technique applied to the students. At the end of the study, the findings were discussed, and recommendations were made for future studies.

Keywords

• Gifted students
• mixed method
• technology awareness
• computational thinking
• eTwinning
• Gifted students, mixed method, technology awareness, computational thinking, eTwinning

References

1. Aksoy, V., & Diken, İ. (2009). A narrative literature review of studies on relationship between the parental self-efficacy levels and development of young. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 10(1) 69-70.
2. Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2019). The effect of programming teaching on computational thinking. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 23(2), 575–590.
3. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: a study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75(2), 661–670.
4. Avcu, Y. E., & Ayverdi, L. (2020). Examination of the computer programming self-efficacy’s prediction towards the computational thinking skills of the gifted and talented students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.2.259
5. Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K.O. (2020). Developing an instructional design for the field of ICT and software for gifted and talented students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(1), 161-183.
6. Başaran, M., Kaya, Z. Zehra, Akbaş, N., & Yalçın, N. (2020). Reflection of eTwinning activity on teachers' professional development in project-based teaching process. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 373-392.
7. Bayraktar, Ş. (2001) A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173-188, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344.
8. Beckett, A. (2010). Exploring mind-mapping as a research tool: from application to analysis. England: Thinking Critically About Analysis’ Conference, University of Leeds (13th September).

9. Budd, J. W. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. The Journal of Economic Education, 35 (1), 35-46.
10. Buzan, T. (1976). Use Both Sides of Your Brain. New York: Dutton.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (17 Edition). Pegem Yayınları.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, Ö. & Köklü, N. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik [Statistics for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
13. Bystrova, T., & Larionova, V. (2015). Use of virtual mind mapping to effectively organise the project activities of students at the university. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 465-472.
14. Calvert, E. (2010). Online tools for independent studies: Learning/Connective. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/ecalvert1/online-tools-for-independent-study.
15. Chen, J., Yun Dai, D., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166-176.
16. Cırık, M. (2016). Uzaktan eğitimin üstün zekalı öğrencilerin eğitimindeki yeri [The place of distance education in gifted education]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 170-187.
17. Crisan, G. I. (2013). The impact of teachers' participation in eTwinning on their teaching and training. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 6(4), 19-28.
18. Cross, T. (2004). Technology and the unseen world of gifted students: Social emotional needs. Gifted Child Today 27(4), 14–15.
19. Çalışkan, M. (2017). Üstün yetenekli çocuklara sahip ailelerin aile işlevselliği[Family functionality of families with gifted children ] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Hasan Kalyoncu.
20. Çiftci, S., Çengel, M., & Paf, M. (2018). Reflective thinking skills on computational thinking and problem solving as a predictor of self-efficacy of informatics teacher candidates on programming. Ahi Evran University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(1), 321-334.
21. Çubukçu, Z., & Tosuntaş Ş. B. (2018). Technology in gifted education. Electronic Journal Of Education Sciences, 7(13), 45-57.
22. Dağlıoğlu, H. E., & Alemdar, M. (2010). Üstün yetenekli bir çocuğun ebeveyni olmak [Being the parent of a gifted child].. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(3), 849-860.
23. Dağtekin, N. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin derslerde teknolojinin kullanılmasına yönelik farkındalık ölçeği'nin geliştirilmesi Develop a valid and reliable scale to determine secondary school students' awareness of technology use in courses]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yüzüncü Yıl University.
24. Dağtekin, N , Artun, H . (2016). Derslerde teknolojinin kullanılmasına yönelik farkındalık ölçeği geliştirme çalışması [Development of an awareness scale regarding technology use in courses]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 18 (2) , 686-705 . DOI: 10.17556/jef.99899.
25. Davaslıgil, Ü. (2000). Üstün çocuklara sahip ailelerin eğitimi [Education of families with outstanding children]. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Özel Eğitim Rehberlik ve Danışma Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Özel Eğitimde Aile Eğitimi Sempozyumu (ss. 142-148). Ankara.
26. Delcourt MAB (1993) Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly 37: 23–31.
27. Demirci, A. (2008). Bilgisayar destekli sabit ve hareketli görsel materyallerin kimya öğretiminde öğrenci başarısına etkisi [Computer assisted fixed and animated visual materials and their effect to students’ achievement in chemistry education]. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Selcuk University, Konya.
28. Dieker, L., Grillo, K., & Ramlakhan, N. (2012). The use of virtual and simulated teaching and learning environments: Inviting gifted students into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers (STEM) through summer partnerships. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 96-106.
29. Diffly, D. (2002). Project-based learning. Gifted Child Today, 25 (3), 40-43.
30. Diffily, D., & Sassman, C. (2002). Project-Based Learning with Young Children. Porstmouth: Heinemann.
31. Dönmez, I, Kirmit, S., Gürbüz, S., & Birsen, O. (2018, May 4-6). Ustun yetenekli ogrencilerin bilgisayarca dusunme becerilerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of computational thinking skills of gifted students] [Paper presentation]. V. Gifted and Education Congress, Gaziantep, Turkey.
32. Ekiz, D. (2013). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific researchmethods]. Anı Yayıncılık.
33. Ersoy, Ö., & Avcı, N. (2000). Özel gereksinimli olan çocuklar ve eğitimleri özel eğitim [Children with special needs and their education is special education]. İstanbul: YA-PA Yayınları.
34. eTwinning faaliyetleri kitapçığı 2019. Retrieved from http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/www/etwinning-faaliyeti-tanitim-kitapcigi/icerik/2976
35. eTwinning Türkiye.(2021a). Retrieved from http://etwinning.meb.gov.tr/etwnedir/
36. eTwinning Türkiye (2021b). Retrieved from https://www.etwinning.net/tr/pub/community/countries/country.cfm?c=793
37. eTwinning Türkiye (2021c). Retrieved from https://www.etwinning.net/tr/pub/community.htm
38. eTwinning Türkiye (2021d). Retrieved from https://www.etwinning.net/tr/pub/index.htm
39. eTwinning Türkiye (2021e). http://etwinning.meb.gov.tr/etwinningin-faydalari/
40. Gajek, E. (2018). Curriculum integration in distance learning at primary and secondary educational levels on the example of eTwinning projects. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1-15.
41. Galvin C., Gilleran A., Hogenbirk P., Hunya M., Michelle Selinger M., & Bettina Z. (2007). Pedagogical Advisory Group – Reflections on eTwinning: Cultural understanding and integration professional. eTwinning Central Support Service, Brussels.
42. Gravetter, J. F., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4. Edition). USA: Linda Schreiber-Ganster.
43. Hill-Anderson, B. (2008). A K-12 gifted program evaluation and the evaluator-district- university gifted program evaluation model (Unpublished PhD’s thesis). Saint Louis University, MO.
44. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). (2015). CT leadership toolkit. International Society for Technology in Education. http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
45. Johnsen, S. K. (2008). Independent study for gifted learners. Friends for gifted and education newsletter 9(1): 1–16.
46. Johnsen, S. K., & Goree, K. (2009). Independent study for gifted learners. (Original work published (2005). Agency-One, Seoul: Academy Press, pp. 387–388.
47. Kaplan, S., & Hertzog, N. B. (2016). Pedagogy for early childhood gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 39(3), 134-139. doi:10.1177/1076217516644637
48. Karakuş, F . (2011). Üstün yetenekli çocukların anne babalarının karşılaştıkları güçlükler [Difficulties faced by parents of gifted children]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 127-144.
49. Kirmit, S., Dönmez, I., & Çataltaş, H. E. (2018). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin bilgisayarca düsünme becerilerinin incelenmesi [The study of gifted students’ computational thinking skills]. Journal of STEAM Education, 1(2), 17-26.
50. Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
51. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Bilgisayarca Düşünme Beceri Düzeyleri Ölçeğinin (CTD) Ortaokul Düzeyine Uyarlanması [Computational thinking levels scale (ctls) adaptation for secondary school level]. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 67-86.
52. Korucu, A., Gençtürk, A., & Gündoğdu, M. (2017). Examination of the computational thinking skills of students. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 2(1), 11–19.
53. Köroğlu, İ. Ş. (2014). Social Media Usage Motivations of Gifted Children (Unpublished Master’s thesis). İstanbul Ticaret University.
54. Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Social group membership increases STEM engagement among preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 53, 201–209.
55. MoNE (2019). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi Yönergesi [Science and Art Center Directive]. Mill Eğitim Bakanlığı Tebliğler Dergisi, Cilt 82, Sayı 2747.
56. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Orava, J., & Worrall, P. (2011). Creative networks of practice using Web 2.0 tools. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 2(1), 37-53.
58. Özcan, D., & Bicen, H. (2016). Giftedness and technology. 12th International Conference on Application of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing, ICAFS, 29-30 August, Vienna, Austria.
59. Pala, A. (2006). İlköğretim birinci kademe öğretmenlerinin eğitim teknolojilerine yönelik tutumları [Primary school teachers' attitudes towards educational technologies]. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16, 178.
60. Pallant, J. (2003). SPSS survival manual. Berkshire: Open University Press.
61. Peachey N. (2009). Web 2.0 Tools for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.technogogy.org.uk/Web20-Tools-for-Teachers.pdf.
62. Pereira Coutinho, C. & Rocha, C. (2007). The eTwinning project: A study with Portuguese 9th grade students. World Multi-Conference On Systemics, Cybernetic And Informatics, 11, Orlando, USA.
63. Pyryt, M. C. (2009). Recent developments in technology: Implications for gifted education. In L. V. Shavinina (Eds.) International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1173-1180). Dordrecht: Springer.
64. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students- revised edition. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
65. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
66. Sak, U. (2016), Üstün zekalılar özellikleri ve tanılanmaları, eğitimleri[Gifted students characteristics and diagnosis, education]. Ankara:Vize Basın Yayın.
67. Shavinina, L. V. (2009). High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies for the gifted. In L. V. Shavinina (Eds.) International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1181-1202). Dordrecht: Springer.
68. Scheffe, H. (1959). The analysis of variance. New York: John Wiley press.
69. Siegle, D. (2007). Technology: Podcasts and blogs: Learning opportunities on the information highway. Gifted Child Today, 30(3), 14-19.
70. Siegle, D. (2013). Technology: Differentiating instruction by flipping the classroom. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 51-55.
71. Siegle, D. (2015a). Using QR Codes to differentiate learning for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 63-66.
72. Siegle, D. (2015b). Technology: Learning can be fun and games. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 192-197.
73. Söğüt, R., & Çekiç, A. (2020). Üstün Yetenekli Çocuğu Olan ve Olmayan Anne Babaların Ebeveynliğe İlişkin Yeterlilik Algıları İle Stres Düzeylerinin Karşılaştırılması [Comparison of Stress Level and Perceptions of Competence Related to Parenting of Parents with Gifted and Non-Gifted Children]. Gelişim ve Psikoloji Dergisi, 1(1), 1-15.
74. Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell, I. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (8.nd Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Limited.
75. Tattersall, C., Watts, A., & Vernon, S. (2007). Mind mapping as a tool in qualitative research. Nursing Times, 103(26), 32-33.
76. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analiz [Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
77. Thomas, J. O., Odemwingie, O. C., Saunders, Q., & Watlerd, M. (2015). Understanding the difficulties African-American middle school girls face while enacting computational algorithmic thinking in the context of game design. Spelman College Faculty Publications. 11.
78. Tortop, H.S. (2014). Perceptions of candidate teachers about concept of the project. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 1(1), 13–20. DOI: 0.18200/JGEDC. 2014110882.
79. Ünsal-Serim, E. (2019). Investigation of computational thinking skills and self-efficacy perceptions of coding with coding education designed by gamification method (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Balikesir.
80. Usta, A. (2016). Investigation of internet addiction in gifted students according to the different variables. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University.
81. Uysal, H., & Akman, B. (2016). Sosyal yetkinlik ve davranış değerlendirme ölçeği’nin türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması [The adaptation study of social competence and behavior evaluation scale into Turkish]. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 419- 446.
82. Ülger, B. B., & Çepni, S. (2017). Üstün yeteneklilerde STEM eğitimi [STEM education for gifted students]. Kuramdan Uygulamaya STEM Eğitimi (s. 471-506). Ankara: Pegem.
83. Vuorikari, R., Berlanga, A., Cachia, R., Cao, Y., Fetter, S., Gilleran, A., ... & Petrushyna, Z. (2011, December). ICT-based school collaboration, teachers’ networks and their opportunities for teachers’ professional development-a case study on eTwinning. In International conference on web-based learning (pp. 112-121). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
84. Yağcı, M. (2018). A study on computational thinking and high school students’ computational thinking skill levels. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 81- 96.
85. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. 10. Edition. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
86. Yıldız Durak, H. (2018). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9391-y
87. Yıldız-Durak, H., Karaoğlan-Yılmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). Computational thinking, programming self-efficacy, problem solving and experiences in the programming process conducted with robotic activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(2), 173-197.
88. Yıldız-Durak, H., & Sarıtepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116(1), 191-202.
89. Yılmaz, F., & Yılmaz Altun, S. (2012). Çok kültürlülük projesi: E-Twinning uygulamalarına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri [A multicultural project: Students' views on the etwinning applications]. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(8), 120-132.
90. Yünkül, E., Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & Mısırlı, Z. A. (2017). The effects of scratch software on students’ computational thinking skills. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 502-517.