Examining 4th Grade Gifted and Non-Gifted Students Understanding Levels of Place Value

Abstract

The aim of this research is to reveal the understanding of dimensions and sub-dimensions of the place value in natural numbers of gifted and non-gifted students attending fourth grade. A mixed approach was adopted in the research. The research is quantitative in terms of revealing the levels of place value, counting, representing, naming, renaming, comparing and calculating the dimensions of the students and comparing the general mean score of both groups with the mean score for each dimension, and it is qualitative in terms of revealing the mistakes made in these dimensions. The study group of the research consists of 76 students diagnosed as gifted who attend four different SACs and 90 non-gifted fourth grade students attending in a regular school in town in the Central Anatolia Region. According to the findings obtained in the research, it was revealed that students with a diagnosis of giftedness could not reach the desired learning level in the count by 10 forward sub-dimension of the counting dimension of the place value. It was also revealed that they could not reach the desired learning level in the non-standard representation sub-dimension of the representation dimension. On the other hand the non-gifted students could not reach the desired learning level also in the division sub-dimension of the calculation dimension. It was concluded that students that are diagnosed as gifted had high success in terms of understanding the place value of natural numbers. For both groups of students, it can be said that they have difficulties in operations with non-standard representations, and they have difficulty in thinking differently because they are used to doing the questions by memorization and rules. Experimental studies can be carried out on the dimensions of the place value.

Keywords

• Primary education
• fourth grade
• dimensions of place value
• gifted students
• mathematics education

References

1. Arslan, S., & Ubuz, B. (2014). İlköğretimde karşılaşılan matematiksel zorluklar ve çözüm öneriler [Mathematical difficulties encountered in primary education and solution suggestions]. In E. Bingölbali & M. F. Özmantar (Eds.), Sayılarda basamak değeri kavramı ve öğrencilerin yaşadığı zorluklar [The concept of place value in numbers and difficulties experienced by students] (pp. 107-123). Pegem Akademi.
2. Arslan, S., Yıldız, C., & Yavuz, İ. (2011). Examining the teaching situations of the concept of place value. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy Education Sciences, 6(1), 409-507.
3. Aztekin, S., & Şener, Z. T. (2015). The content analysis of mathematical modelling studies in Turkey: A meta-synthesis study. Education and Science, 40(178), 139-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4125
4. Baykul, Y. (2002). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi [Teaching Mathematics in Primary Education]. Pegem Akademi.
5. Baykul, Y. (2016). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi [Teaching Mathematics in Primary Education]. Pegem Akademi. Bildiren, A. (2018). Üstün yetenekli çocuklar [Gifted Children]. Pegem Akademi.
6. Billstein, R., Libeskind, S., & Lott, W. J. (2013). A problem solving approach to mathematics for elementary school teachers. Pearson Publishing.
7. Bingölbali, E., & Özmantar M. F. (Eds.). (2015). İlköğretimde karşılaşılan matematiksel zorluklar ve çözüm önerileri [Mathematical difficulties encountered in primary education and solution suggestions]. Pegem Akademi.
8. Bingölbali, E., Arslan, S., & Zembat, İ. Ö. (Eds.). (2016). Matematik eğitiminde teoriler [Theories in mathematics education]. Pegem Akademi. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25-66.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.
10. Carpenter, T. P., Blume, G., Hiebert, J., Anick, C. M., & Pimm, D. (1982). A review of research on addition and subtraction. Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, 330, 223-447. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED223447.pdf
11. Cohen, J. (1988). The t-test for means. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Araştırma deseni [Research design]. S. B. Demir (Trans.). Eğiten Kitap Yayınları.
13. Çetin, A., & Doğan, A. (2018). Problems that mathematics teachers encounter in Science and Art Centers. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 615-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.370355
14. Çiltaş, A., & Muşlu, M. (2016). The impact of the mathematical modeling method at teaching the subject of the process on natural numbers on the student success. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 329-343. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/befdergi/issue/28762/307845
15. Çite, H. (2016). Determination of 4th grade students’ misconceptions regarding the learning domain of numbers and solution offers to overcome these misconceptions [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
16. Davis, G., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Pearson Publishing.
17. Demirtaş, A. (1986). Ansiklopedik matematik sözlüğü [Encyclopedic dictionary of mathematics]. Bilim ve Kültür Yayınları.
18. Dinç-Artut, P., & Tarım, K. (2006). Elementary students’ comprehension of place value concept. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education, 2(1), 26-36. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/eku/issue/5441/73878
19. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. MvGraw-Hill Inc.
20. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Book Inc.
21. Gay, L., Mills. G., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Prentice Hall.
22. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. Mcgraw-Hill.
23. Güneş, B., Gülçiçek, Ç., & Bağcı, N. (2004). Eğitim fakültelerindeki fen ve matematik öğretim elemanlarının model ve modelleme hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examining the views of science and mathematics instructors in education faculties about modeling and modeling]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1(1), 35-48.
24. Hacısalihlioğlu, H. H., Hacıyev, A., & Kalantarov, V. (2000). Matematik terimleri sözlüğü [Dictionary of mathematical terms]. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
25. Hendrawan, M., & Nurkamilah, M. (2020). Development of kite number learning media help adobe flash CS6 on the concept of place number values in elementary school 2 Singaparna. Paper Presented at Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1477, p. 2-12). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1477/2/022002
26. Houdement, C., & Tempier, F. (2018). Understanding place value with numeration units. ZDM Mathematics Education. 51(1), 25-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0985-6
27. İpek, A. S., & Okumuş, S. (2012). The representations of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers used in solving mathematical problems. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 681-700.
28. Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1993). Children's understanding of place value: A Framework for curriculum development and assessment. Young Children, 48(5), 12-18.
29. Kahveci, N. G., & Akgul, S. (2019). The relationship between mathematical creativity and intelligence: a study on gifted and general education students. Gifted and Talented International, 34(1-2), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2019.1693311
30. Kamii, C., & Joseph, L. (1988). Teaching place value and double-column addition, Arithmetic Teacher, 35(6), 45-52.
31. Kaplan, H. A. (2008). An examination of 8th grade students' construction about 'place' and 'place value' concepts [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University, Ankara.
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition). Sage Publications Inc.
33. MoNE. (2015). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Yönergesi [Ministry of National Education, Science and Art Centers Instruction]. MEB Yayınları.
34. Mutlu, Y., & Sarı, M. H. (2019). Developing the understanding of place-value in primary students. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(2), 657-667. http://dx.doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2645
35. Önal, H. (2018). Mistakes made by first and second grade primary school students in mathematics lesson about four operations and solution suggestions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Marmara University.
36. Özbay, Y. (2013). Üstün yetenekli çocuklar ve aileleri [Gifted children and their families]. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı Yayınları.
37. Özçelik, D. A. (2010). Okullarda ölçme ve değerlendirme: Öğretmen el kitabı [Measurement and evaluation in schools: a teacher's handbook]. Pegem Akademi.
38. Özdemir, İ. E. Y. (2008). Prospective elementary teachers’ cognitive skills on using manipulatives in teaching mathematics. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35(35), 362-373. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hunefd/issue/7803/102301
39. Özmen, R. (2017). Matematikte öğretimsel stratejiler-problem çözme, doğal sayılar, doğal sayılarla dört işlem [Instructional strategies in mathematics-problem solving, natural numbers, four operations with natural numbers]. Eğiten Kitap Yayınları.
40. Paydar, S. (2018). Examining 4th grade students' understanding level in terms of place value in natural numbers [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
41. Paydar, S., & Sarı, M. H., (2019). İlkokul ikinci ve üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin basamak değeri kavrayışları [Second and third grade primary school students' comprehension of place value], In S. Olkun, M. E. Deniz, M. Toran, M. H. Sarı & H. Kamışlı (Eds.), Bütünsel açıdan çocuk [Holistically child] (pp.97-116). Pegem Akademi. http://dx.doi.org/10.14527/9786058011410
42. Paydar, S., Doğan, A., & Şahin, A. E. (2019). An analysis of primary first grade students’ readiness in natural numbers. Elementary Education Online, 18(3). 1059-1072. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.610645
43. Pilten, P., Serin, M. K., & Işık, N. (2016). A phenomenological study on classroom teachers’ perceptions about mathematical modeling. Turkish Studies, 11(3), 1919-1934. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9514
44. Püsküllüoğlu, A. (2003). Türkçe sözlük [Turkish dictionary]. Arkadaş Yayınevi.
45. Rappaport, D. (1966). Understanding and teaching elementary school mathematics. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Rogers, A. (2014). Investigating whole number place value in Years 3-6: creating an evidence-based developmental progression [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. RMIT University.
46. Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixing practice problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(1), 4–17.
47. Sak, U. (2017). Üstün zekalılar: Özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri [Gifted people: traits identification training]. Vize Yayınları.
48. Sidekli, S., Gökbulut, Y., & Sayar, N. (2013). How to improve the number operations skills. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 1(1), 31-41.
49. Skemp, R. R. (1993). The psychology of learning mathematics. Penguin Group Publishing.
50. Sovchik, R. (1989). Teaching mathematics to children. Harper & Row Publishers.
51. Şengül, S., & Ekinöz, İ. (2007) The effect of the usage of role-play in permutation and probability subject to the student’s success and recall level. Kastamonu Education Journal. 15(1), 251-258
52. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2015). Foundations of mixed methods research [Karma yöntem araştırmalarının temeli] (Y. Dede & S.B. Demir, Trans. Eds.). Anı Yayınları.
53. Thanheiser, E., & Melhuish, K. (2019). Leveraging variation of historical number systems to build understanding of the base-ten place-value system. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(1), 39-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0984-7
54. Thompson, I. (2000). Teaching place value in the UK: Time for a reappraisal? Educational Review, 52(3), 291-297. Tosun, M. (2011). The investigation of primary school students' skill in place value [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Çukurova University.
55. Tuna, A., Biber, A. Ç., & Yurt, N. (2013). Mathematical modeling skills of prospective mathematics teachers. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 33(1), 129-146.
56. Turgut, M.F., & Baykul, Y. (2014). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Evaluation and measurement in education]. Pegem Yayınları.
57. Tutak, T., Kükey, E., Zengin, Ş., & Gün, Z. (2012). Teachers' views on understanding elementary 8th grade permutation and probability issues. Paper presented at X. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress (pp.27-30). Niğde, Turkey.
58. Vareles, M., & Becker, J. (1997). Children’s developing understanding of place value: Semiotic aspect, Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 265-286.
59. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research in social sciences] (10th ed.). Seçkin Yayınları.
60. Yıldız, A., Baltaci, S., Kurak, Y., & Güven, B. (2012). Examining the usage of problem-solving strategies by the eighth grade gifted and non-gifted students. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 25(1), 123-143.
61. Yıldız, H. (2010). A case study on the Science and Arts Centers (SAC’s) which are a model for the education of gifted and talented children [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.