Discriminant Analysis of Psycho-Social Predictors of Mathematics Achievement of Gifted Students in Nigeria

Year 2019, , 581 - 594, 15.09.2019

Oluseyi Dada , Samuel Matthew Akpan

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.605981

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The disturbing issue of Mathematics underachievement among gifted
students seems more like a mystery than a reality and therefore calls for
urgent intervention. This is why this study was motivated to investigate the
psycho-social predictors that are reliable in discriminating potential
achievers and underachieving gifted students in Mathematics. The study is a
causal comparative study of 154 gifted SSII students purposively selected
through multi-stage screening form 15 secondary schools in Calabar education
zone, Cross River State, Nigeria. The discriminant analysis was used to answer
the four research questions set to guide the study. There were three main
instruments used in the study; the adapted Slosson Intelligence Test Revised
(SIT-R r= 0.89) edition, Psycho-Social Scale for Adolescent (PSSA; r=.72, .69,
.76, .78, .68, .73 and .73 for the sub-scales) and Mathematics Achievement Test
(MAT; r=.78).The result of the data analysis revealed that selected
psycho-social variables: Mathematics
self-efficacy, Mathematics interest, Mathematics task commitment, peer
influence, parental influence and Mathematics career aspiration) significantly
and reliably
predict and classify gifted students into Mathematics potential achievers and
underachievers with the exception of the
students’ general intelligence. The findings show that there are more gifted Mathematics underachievers (N= 82;
53.3%) than gifted potential Mathematics achievers (N= 72; 46.7%). It also shows
that 100% of the gifted underachievers and potential achievers were perfectly
classified.

Keywords

Discriminant Analysis, Gifted Student, Mathematics Achievement, Potential Gifted Achievers

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy.InH.S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of mental health.San Diego: Academy press.
• Berndt, T.J. (1999). Friends’ influence on students’ adjustment to school. Educational Psychologist, 34, 15-28.
• Clark, B. (2008). Optimizing Learning. The integrative education model in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Coil, C. (2004). The hidden gifted underachiever. Gifted Education Communicator, 35(4), 28-30.
• Dada, O.A (2013). Models and strategies for implementing qualitative inclusive gifted education in Nigeria. A book of Readings in Inclusive Education by National Council for Exceptional Children. Jos, Nigeria: Oxford Binders
• Dada, O. A. & Dada E. O. (2014). Efficacy of co-operative and self-directed learning strategies in enhancing Mathematics achievement for underachieving gifted students in Nigeria. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 19, (9), 41-50
• Dada, O.A. (2014). Influence of levels of intelligence in co-operative learning on Mathematics achievement of gifted students. The Special Educator, 13(1), 239-250.
• Dada, O.A. (2015). Identifying Mathematics underachieving gifted child in inclusive classroom. The Special Educator, 14(1), 156-166.
• Dada, O. A., Bassey, B. A. & Usani, J. O. (2016). Institutional predictors of academic creativity of undergraduate in universities in Cross River State. Global Journal of Educational Research, 15, 113-119
• Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1995). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Dada, O.A. & Fagbemi, O.O. (2018). Influence of Emotional Intelligence and Locus of Control on Academic Achievement of Underachieving High Ability Students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(2), 14-22
• Deliesle, J. (2004). Comfortably numb: A new view of underachievement. Gifted Education Communicator, 35(4), 17-20.
• Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Personal patterns of underachievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 221-233.
• Gallagher, J.J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12.
• Johnson, D.T. (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in mixed-ability classroom. ERIC Digest, E594. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, the Council for Exceptional Children.
• Mc Coach, D.B (2000). The underachievement of gifted students. What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152 – 170
• McCoach, D.B &Seigle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144-154.
• McCoach, D.B., & Siegle, D. (2001). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the school Attitude Assessment Survey- Revised (SAAS-R). Educational and Psychological Measurement.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (2000) Shaping the standards: higher standards for our students, higher standards for ourselves. Hyatt Regency Grand Ballroom, Chicago Annual Meeting.
• Pyryt, M. (1996). IQ: Easy to bash, hard to replace. Roeper Review, 18(4), 255 – 258
• Reis, S. M., (1995). Talent in two places: Case studies of high ability students withlearning disabilities who have achieved. Storrs: University of Connecticut. The National Research Centeron the Gifted and Talented.
• Reis, S.M (1998). Underachievement for some-dropping out with dignity for others. Communicator, 29(1), 19 – 24.
• Reis, S.M. and McCoach, D.B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly¸44, 152-170.
• Rimm, S. B. (1997). Underachievement syndrome: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 416-434). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Schunk, D. H. & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Smith, D.D. (2001). Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of opportunity (4th ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Whitmore, J. R. (1987). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.