The Difference between Gifted and Ordinary Children in Jordan in their Use of Intuitive Rule "same A- same B"

Authors

  • Ziad N. Obied

Keywords:

Gifted, Ordinary Children, Intuitive Rule "same A-same B".

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to examine  the difference between gifted and ordinary students in Jordan in their use of intuitive rule "Same A-Same B". Participants of the study consisted of (240) students divided into two groups (120 gifted, and 120 ordinary students), I used a questionnaire including 4 tasks relates to the  rule " same A- same B". An analysis of variance was carried out for correct responses for intuitive rule " Same A- Same B" with the factors giftedness (ordinary, gifted) and grade level (10th 11th 12th grades).  Results indicate that there is a significant differences were between gifted and ordinary students in their responses to tasks embedded in rule "Same A-Same B: The gifted students gave more correct responses than the ordinary students.

References

Anastasi, A., & Foley, J. P. (1959). Differential psychology. N.Y.: MacMillan.

Bonner, A. F. (2000). African American giftedness: Our nation’s deferred dream. Journal of Black Studies, 30 (5), 643-663.

Cassidy, J., & Hossler, A. (1992). State and federal definitions of the gifted: An update. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(2), 46-53.

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted, (5th ed). Columbus, Ohio.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Davis, A. G., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davis, A. G., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dembo, Y., Levin, I., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). A comparison of the geometric reasoning of students attending ultra orthodox and mainstream schools. Developmental Psychology, 33, 92 – 103.

Erickson, G. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63, 221-230.

Gallagher, J. J. (1979). Issues in education for gifted. In A.H. Passow (Eds.), The gifted and the talented: Their education and development (pp. 5-50). Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press.

Livne, T. (1996). Examination of high school students’ difficulties in understanding the change in surface area, volume and surface area, volume ratio with the change in size and/or shape of a body. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel- Aviv, Israel, (in Hebrew).

Maker, J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 1, 41-48.

Milgram, R. M. (1989). Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Newland, T. E. (1976). The gifted in socio-educational perspective. Englewood cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. New York: Norton. Inc.

Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child’s conception of geometry. London: Rout ledge & Kegan Paul.

Ravia, N. (1992). Inconsistencies in the perception of the concepts heat and temperature (9th grade). Unpublished master’s thesis. Tel Aviv University, Tel-aviv, Israel. (In Hebrew)

Ronen, E. (2001). The intuitive rule “Same A- Same Bâ€: The case of overgeneralization of the conservation schema. Doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basic for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64, 679-692.

Stavy, R., Strauss, S., Orpaz, N., & Camri, G. (1982). U-shaped behavioral growth in ratio comparisons, or that’s funny I would not have thought you were U-ish. In S. Strauss & R. Stavy (Eds.), U- shaped behavioral growth (pp. 11-36). New York: Academic Press.

Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students’ (Mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York: Teachers college.

Stephens, R. K., & Karnes, A. F. (2000). Gifted children definition guideline states. Journal of Exceptional Children, 66, (2), 219-238.

Strauss, S., & Stavy, R. (1982). U-shaped behavioral growth: Implications for theories of development. In W.W. Hartup (Ed.), Review of child developments research (pp. 547-599). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted child at mid–life, thirty five years follow up of the superior child (pp. 222-265). CA, USA: Stanford University Press.

Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267- 296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Downloads

Published

2014-12-15

How to Cite

Obied, Z. N. (2014). The Difference between Gifted and Ordinary Children in Jordan in their Use of Intuitive Rule "same A- same B". Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 2(6). Retrieved from https://www.ajouronline.com/index.php/AJEEL/article/view/1982

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 6 (2014): December 2014

Section

Articles

License

  • Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
  • It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
  • The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
  • The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  • The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.