Effects of learning style based differentiated activities on gifted students’ creativity

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how effective are differentiation and enrichment of an instructional design in revealing and improving creative thinking skills of gifted and talented learners. Pre-test and post-test experiment-control group quasi-experimental design was used in this study. The subjects of the study consisted of 72 students aged 10 to 11 years, who were identified as gifted and talented and who are currently attending the same Science and Arts Center (BİLSEM) in the province of Istanbul. When the findings were interpreted, it is possible to conclude that the instructional design that was differentiated and enriched by means of the Kolb’s learning styles the Bloom’s taxonomy had positive effects on revealing and improving creative thinking skills of gifted and talented learners. Based on the findings obtained within this study, we could recommend that teachers, who would like to support and develop their students’ creative thinking skills, should first start with identifying the potentials, interests and learning styles of their students; then provide them with a learning environment where the students can demonstrate their creativity, defend their ideas freely, and produce unique solutions to the problems that they face; and finally employ the approaches, methods, or techniques that improve creative thinking and whose effectiveness is scientifically proven in the literature.

Keywords

• Activities for gifted students
• Creativity
• Differentiated instruction
• Gifted student
• Learning style

References

1. Aksoy, B. (2004). Coğrafya öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımı (Problem-based learning approach in geography teaching) . Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
2. Aktamış, H. & Ergin, Ö . (2006). Fen eğitimi ve yaratıcılık (Science Education and Creativity). Dokuz Eylül University Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 20, 77-83.
3. Aslan, A.E. (2001). Torrance Yaratıcı Düşünce Testi’nin Türkçe Versiyonu. Marmara University Atatürk Educational Sciences Journal, 14, 19-40.
4. Ataman, A. (1998). Üstün zekalılar ve üstün yetenekliler (Gifted and Talented Students), Anadolu University, Open University Press, No: 561.
5. Başer, N. ve Ersoy, E. (2009). The creative thinking levels of students at sixth class of primary education. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(9), 128-137.
6. Biggs, J. (2001) “Enhancing learning: a matter of style or approach”. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Bilgin, I., & Durmuş, S. (2003). Öğrenme stilleri Iile öğrenci başarısı arasındaki ilişki üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir araştırma (A comparative study on the relationship between learning styles and student achievement). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 3 (2), 381–400.
8. Chapman, M., M., (1997). Ideational Skills Training: a key in creativity training programs, Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 33-34

9. Cooper, C. R., Baum, S. M., & Neu, T. W. (2004). Developing scientific talent in students with special needs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(4), 162-169.
10. Ekici, G. (2003). Öğrenme stiline dayalı öğretim ve biyoloji dersine öğretimine yönelik ders planı örnekleri (Lesson plan examples for teaching based on learning style and biology lesson). Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
11. Gencel, İ. E. (2007). Kolb’ün deneyimsel öğrenme kuramına dayalı öğrenme stilleri envanteri III Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 120–140.
12. Genç, M. ve Kocaarslan, M. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stillerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi: Bartın Üniversitesi örneği. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(2), 324-347.
13. Ghaedi, Z. & Jam, B. (2014). Relationship between learning styles and motivation for higher education in efl students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4 (6), 1232-1237.
14. Graf, S., Kinshuk, & Liu, T.-C. (2009). Supporting teachers in ıdentifying students' learning styles in learning management systems: an automatic student modelling approach. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 3– 14.
15. Güven, M.(2004). Öğrenme stilleri ile öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişki. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,
16. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (Scientific research method), Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
17. Kaya, H. & Akcin, E. (2002). Öğrenme biçemleri/stilleri ve hemşirelik eğitimi. Cumhuriyet University. Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, 6 (2): 31–36.
18. Kılıç, E. & Karadeniz Ş. (2004). Cinsiyet ve öğrenme stilinin gezinme stratejisi ve başarıya etkisi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24 (3), 129-146.
19. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory: Self-scoring inventory and interpretation booklet, Boston: McBer and Company
21. Kolb, D. A. (2000). Facilitator’s guide to learning. Hay Resources Direct.
22. Maker, J. C. & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
23. Maltbia, T.E. (2009). Kolb Learning Style Inventory Online. Interpretative Report (3), 7-9
24. Mann, E. L., Mann, R. L., Strutz, M. L., Duncan, D., & Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Integrating engineering into K-6 curriculum: developing talent in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(4), 639-658.
25. Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 25-29.
26. MEB.(2013). Özel yetenekli bireylerin eğitimi strateji ve uygulama klavuzu (Special talented education strategy and implementation guide). Özel Eğitim Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara
27. Ozerem, A., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). Learning environments designed according to learning styles and its effects on mathematics achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 61, 61-80.
28. Özerbaş, M.A. (2011). Yaratıcı düşünme öğrenme ortamının akademik başarı ve bilgilerin kalıcılığa etkisi (The effect of creative thinking teaching environment on academic achievement and retention of knowledge). Gazi Educational Faculty Journal, 31(3), 675-705.
29. Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Eds.), Dimension of thinking and cognitive instruction, (pp.15–33).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekalılar: özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri (Gifted students, structures, identifications, nurturing). Ankara: Maya Akademi.
31. Scott, G., Leritz E. L ve Mumford, D. M., (2004). The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review, Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.
32. Sutlif, R. I. & Baldwin, V. (2001). Learning styles: Teaching technology subjects can be more e ective. The Journal of Technologies, Winter-Spring, 22–27.
33. Torrance, E.P. (1996). Torrance tests of creative thinking : Norms technical manual. Personnel Press Inc.: LM.
34. Tortop, H. S. (2018). Üstün zekalılar eğitiminde farklılaştırılmış öğretim müfredat farklılaştırma modelleri (Differentiated Instruction and Differentiation Models for Gifted). Istanbul. Young Wise (GençBilge) Publishing.
35. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences?. Stardards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.
36. Vural, L. (2013). Grasha-Riechmann öğrenme stili ölçeğinin yapı geçerliği çalışmaları (Construct Validation Of Grasha-Riechmann Learning Style Scale). Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 9 (4), 481-496.
37. Whetton, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2002). Answers to Exercises Taken From Developing Management Skills (3rd Edition). Northwestern Univ.
38. Whitcomb, R. M. (1999). The relationship between student cognitive developmentand learning style preference, Unpublished doctoral thesis The University of Maine.
39. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H.(2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
40. Yılmaz, K., & Altınkurt, Y. (2011). Göreve Yeni Başlayan Özel Dershane Öğretmenlerinin Kurumlarındaki Çalışma Koşullarına İlişkin Görüşleri (The views of new teachers at private teaching institutions about working conditions). Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice, 11(2), 635-650.
41. Yoon, S. H. (2000). Using learning style and goal accomplishment style to predict academic achievement in middle school geography students in Korea, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pittsburg.