Article Sidebar

Submitted
Nov 13, 2018
Published
Oct 31, 2018
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1505 Download : 668

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aimed at examining the effectiveness of the Saudi Aramco Research Science Initiative (SARSI) Summer Immersion training program for developing time management and meta cognitive thinking life skills among female gifted secondary school students. The research sample comprised 31 female gifted students enrolled in various Saudi secondary schools. Their ages ranged from 15 to 17 years old with an average age of 16.23. The Abdul Salam scale was used for the measuring time-management performance and metacognitive thinking skills in the pre- and post-assessment of the SARSI program. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the students’ pre- and post-assessments on:  a) time management skills; b) the overall meta cognitive thinking life skills and  c) two subcategories of metacognitive skills: planning and self-monitoring. However, no significant differences were identified in the pre- and post-assessment for self-assessment.

Keywords

Secondary school gifted students time management meta-cognition life skills.

Article Details

References

  1. Abu Assi, D. (2012). Time management among academically gifted and their relationship to the level of ambition. Journal of the College of Education. El-Arish, Suez Canal University. srv4.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/Libraries/Thesis/BrowseThesisPages.aspx?fn...BibID.
  2. Alghamdi, H., & Abdul Salam, H., N. (2016). The effectiveness of the mawhiba program for the development of critical thinking skills among gifted female students at the secondary levels. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioral Science, 14 )2) 1-13.
  3. Al Qarni, M. A. (2010). Evaluation of provision for gifted students in Saudi Arabia (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Wollongong, Wollongong.
  4. Alqefari, A. (2010). A study of program memes for gifted students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Brunel University, London.
  5. Brandwein, P. F. (1995). Science talent in the young expressed within ecologies of achievement (RBDM 9510). Storrs, CT: The National Research Centre on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  6. Chan, D. W. (2011). Characteristics and com-petencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong student perspective. Roeper Re-view, 33,160–169.
  7. Dewey, J. (1913) Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Riverside.
  8. Dubner, F. (1980). Thirteen ways of looking at a gifted teacher’. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 3, 143–146.
  9. Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted edu-cation (2nd edition) (pp. 547–552). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  10. Feldhusen, J. F., & Hoover, S. M. (1986). A conception of giftedness: Intelligence, self-concept and motivation. Roeper Review, 8(3), 140–143.
  11. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New York: Wiley.
  12. Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1973). The one-way relation between creative potential and IQ. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7, 247–252.
  13. Hassan, A. N. (2004). Metacognition and its rela-tionship with some personality traits among undergraduate students, (Unpublished Mas-ter’s Thesis). Suez Canal University, Suez .
  14. Hassan, A. N. (2015). Time management skills and its relation to quality of life among girls, Dammam University Education College students and its effects on their achievement. Journal of Education, Al Azhar University, 163, 53-94.
  15. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in def-inition, measurement, and instruction’, Ed-ucational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
  16. Keeley, P. (2009, April 22). ‘Elementary science education in the K-12 system’ NSTA Web-News Digest. From:
  17. http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=55954].
  18. Lindahl, B. (2007). A longitudinal study of students’attitudes towards science and choice of career. Paper presented at the 9th NARST International Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  19. Lohman, D. F. (2008). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. in L. V. Shavinina (ed). International handbook on giftedness (pp. 971–997). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  20. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in sci-ence. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 669–685.
  21. doi:10.1080/09500690902792385
  22. Marshall, S. P., McGee, G. W., McLaren, E., & Veal, C. C. (2011). Discovering and devel-oping diverse STEM talent: Enabling aca-demically talented urban youth to flourish’, Gifted Child Today, 34(10), 16–23.
  23. Mazer, J. (2013a) ‘Associations among teacher communication behaviours, student inter-est, and engagement: A validity test’. Com-munication Education, 62, 86–96. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.731513
  24. Mazer, J. (2013b) ‘Student emotional and cog-nitive interest as mediators of teacher communication behaviours and student engagement: An examination of direct and interaction effects’. Communication Education, 62, 253–277.
  25. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.777752
  26. Metz, K. E. (2008) ‘Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom’, The Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161.
  27. National Association for Gifted Children, Task Force on Math and Science. (2008) The STEM promise: Recognizing and developing talent and expanding opportunities for promising students of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. From:
  28. http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/STEM%20white%20paper%281%29.pdf].
  29. O’Neil, H. F. & Abedi, J. (1996). Japanese chil-dren’s trait and state worry and emotionali-ty in a high-stakes testing environment. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5, 253-267.
  30. Roberts, J. L. (2010). Talent development in STEM disciplines: Diversity—Cast a wide net. National Consortium for Specialized Sec-ondary Schools of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 16(1), 7–9. From: http://www.ncsssmst.org/publications/journal/63spring-2010-journal].
  31. Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Co-tabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted ele-mentary students’ science knowledge and skills’, Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189–213.
  32. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A syn-thesis of the research on educational prac-tice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396.
  33. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and mo-tivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.
  34. Swan, B., Coulombe-Quach, X.-L., Huang, A., Godek, J., Becker, D., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students: Case study of a virtual learning lab in a rural middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(4), 294–319.
  35. Tago, A. (2013). 2750 students to participate in mawhiba summer program SAUDI ARA-BIA.From: athttp://www.arabnews.com/news/454680#.
  36. The King Abdulaziz and His Companions Founda-tion for Giftedness and Creativity. (2015). from http://www.mawhiba.org.sa/AR/Pages/home.aspx
  37. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54. doi:10.2307/1170745
  38. Torrance, E. P. (1980). Creative intelligence and “an agenda for the 80’s. Art Education, 33, 8–14.
  39. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1989). Profiles of precoci-ty: A three-year study of talented adoles-cents. In J. Van Tassel-Baska & P. Olszewski -Kubilius (eds) Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 29-39). New York: Springer Netherlands.
  40. Wininger, S. R., Adkins, O., Inman, T. F., & Roberts, J. (2014). Development of a student interest in mathematics scale for gifted and talented programming identification. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), p. 403–421.