Examination of Science Self-Regulation Skills of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students

Abstract

The study aimed to examine and compare the science self-regulation skills of gifted and non-gifted students in this study. Survey design, one of the quantitative methods, was utilized in the research. The sample of the study consisted of 263 gifted students enrolled in science and art center and 482 non-gifted students located in the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Science Self-regulation Scale was used as a data collection tool in the research. Independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used in the analysis of the data. The findings showed that gifted and non-gifted students had high self-regulation skills towards science. In addition, it was found that although there was no statistically significant difference between the average scores of gifted female and male students on the overall scale, there was a significant difference in the other group. Moreover, while the difference between the mean scores obtained in the dimensions of Refinement, Time Organizing, Organizing, Help Seeking, Metacognitive Self-regulation, and Repetition was in favor of gifted students, it was in favor of non-gifted students regarding the mean scores of critical thinking and effort regulation dimensions. The conclusion and implication were discussed in line with these findings.

Relationship Between Student Perceptions of a Constructivist Learning Environment, and their Motivational Beliefs and Self-Regulation of Effort

“…On the other hand, students' self-regulation of effort was found different across gender in favor of females. This finding is like the study by Nacaroğlu, Bektaş and Tüysüz (2021).…”

The Evaluation of Gifted Students A Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

“…The reviewed studies varied in their aims. Most of them examined the different skills of students, such as their metacognitive thinking skills (Al-Gaseem et al ( 2020), science selfregulation skills Nacaroglu et al (2021), problem-solving skills Ewies et al (2021), and motor performance development of children with varying skill levels (Krombholz, 2018). Other studies attempted to show the psychometric properties of certain scales, including the Mathematical Competence Scale (MCS) Bellini et al (2019), a self-report scale to identify characteristics of giftedness Zaia et al (2018), The Bateria de Avaliação Intelectual e Criativa Infantil (BAICI) scale Wechsler et al (2022), and a parental rating scale for the identification of intellectually gifted preschoolers (Jabůrek et al, 2021).…”

“…Findings related to skills indicate that the concept of a general talent is more favourable than specific talent or non-talent, as well as the importance of family or environment-at least for motor skills in preschool (Krombholz, 2018). Talented Science Education Students (TSESs) have a high level of Metacognitive Thinking Skills (MTSs) (Nacaroglu et al, 2021). The selfregulation skills of gifted students increase along with age, while those of non-gifted students decrease (Nacaroglu et al, 2021).…”

“…Three studies used scales that focus on the characteristics of gifted students (Zaia et al, 2018;Jawabreh et al, 2022;de Sousa & Fleith, 2021). Some studies used self-report measures, such as the Science Self-Regulation Scale (Nacaroglu et al, 2021); the Pictorial Scale for Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance and the Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale (Papadopoulos, 2021); and the Big Three Perfectionism Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Alshurman et al, 2021). Three studies used measures and scales relating to the mathematical ability of students: the unidimensional MCS (Bellini et al, 2019) and test of analytical mathematical abilities, Amthauer's test of intelligence structure (TSI) and Krutetsky's giftedness identification scale (Tushnova, 2020).…”

“…Most samples in the studies were students as shown in Figure 2: (Dori et al, 2018;Zaia et al, 2018;Vogelaar et al, 2019;Tushnova, 2020;Al-Gaseem et al, 2020;Nacaroglu et al, 2021;Alshurman et al, 2021;Ewies et al, 2021;Rosa et al, 2022;Wechsler et al, 2022;Pezzuti et al, 2022). Some studies included samples from among students and teachers (Sorrentino, 2019;de Sousa & Fleith, 2021).…”