EXPLORING THE MOTIVATION OF ELEMENTARY GIFTED LEARNERS USING MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM-POSING
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Author
Williams, Rachael AnnKeyword
Curriculum developmentEducation
Mathematics education
Elementary school, Gifted learners, Mathematical problem-posing, Motivation, Traditional problem-solving
Metadata
Show full item recordTitle
EXPLORING THE MOTIVATION OF ELEMENTARY GIFTED LEARNERS USING MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM-POSINGAbstract
Gifted students' often go unchallenged in the classroom, and this lack of tailored instruction can lead to decreased motivation, which, in turn, influences underachievement, which is a significant concern since these children, theoretically, should be our highest achievers. This 4-week (i.e., eight instructional days) semi-randomized, pre-test/post-test experimental design study tested a mathematical problem-solving intervention to evaluate its effects on gifted students’ motivation in mathematics. Fourth and fifth grade gifted students were semi-randomly placed into groups for mathematical instruction using business-as-usual, Traditional Problem-Solving (TPS), or Mathematical Problem-Posing (MPP) pedagogical approaches. Twenty-nine gifted students took the Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI; Gottfried, 2006) at pre-test (i.e., before instruction) and again at post-test to measure any potential changes in their learning motivation in mathematics using raw scores. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to explore the mean difference between groups (i.e., TPS/MPP instruction) on one continuous dependent variable (i.e., post-test motivation scores) while controlling for pre-test motivation scores (i.e., covariate). After controlling for pre-test scores, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in students’ motivation scores, F(1, 26) = .057, p = .813, although students’ motivation scores increased in both groups. Limitations, such as the duration of the intervention, are discussed along with implications for future research, which include repeating the study with a larger sample and for a longer duration.Description
2024Collections