Measuring Artistically Gifted Students’ Attitudes toward Technology Using Modified Fennema Sherman Attitudes Scales
Keywords:
Sanatta üstün yetenekli öğrenciler, teknolojiye karşı tutumlar, artistically gifted, Attitudes toward technologyAbstract
Abstract
This study measured artistically gifted stu- dents’ attitudes toward technology and com- pared them to their math/science peers. Re- searchers administered the English version of the Modified Fennema Sherman Attitudes Scales (M-FSAS) to 149 students enrolled at a residential school (grades 7 – 12) for the artisti- cally and math/science gifted (108 female, 41 male). Analyses revealed no multivariate differ- ence between arts concentrations; however, there was a statistically significant multivariate difference between math/science students and arts students. Further univariate analyses indi- cated statistically significant differences in all areas except in the gender differences subscale. Math/science students had lower M-FSAS scores, which equate to stronger attitudes sur- rounding technology. Results suggest that artis- tically gifted students do not perceive technol- ogy as being as relevant to their lives as their math/science gifted peers. For this artistically gifted sample, these results potentially repre- sent fewer career opportunities and creative outlets. Based on these results, educators should imbed into the curriculum opportuni- ties for artistically gifted students to utilize technology for career-oriented purposes.
Öz
Araştırmada sanat alanında üstün yetenekli öğ- rencilerin teknolojiye karşı tutumları incelen- miş ve matematik ve fen alanlarındaki üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin tutumları ile karşılaştırıl- mıştır. Ölçme aracı olarak Fennema Sherman Tutumlar Ölçeği yatılı bir okula devam eden 108’i kız ve 41’i erkek olmak üzere sanatta ve matematik ve fen alanlarında üstün yetenekli toplam 149 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır (7. ve 12. sınıflar arası). Analizler sanat alanları arasında bir farkın olmadığını ancak sanat alanları ile matematik ve fen alanlarında üstün yetenekli öğrenciler arasında farkların olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Matematik ve fen alanlarında yete- nekli öğrenciler teknolojiye karşı daha güçlü tu- tumlar ortaya koymuşlardır. Matematik ve fende yetenekli öğrencilere kıyasla sanat ala- nında üstün yetenekli öğrenciler teknolojinin kendi yaşamları için çok ilgili olmadığını dü- şünmektedirler. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre teknolojinin sanatta üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için daha az kariyer fırsatları sunduğu söylene- bilir. Araştırma bulgularına göre, sanatta üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için kariyer olanakları sağ- layabilecek teknoloji entegrasyonun eğitimle- rine uyarlanması önerilebilir.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ash, A. (2000). Bite the ICT Bullet: Using the World Wide Web in Art Education. In R. Hickman (Ed.), Art Education 11-18 (pp. 83-96). New York, NY: Continuum.
Author (in press – fall 2014). Creating a Sustainable Digital Ecosystem for the Gifted Education Classroom. In F. A. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.). Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted (4th edition). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Besnoy, K. D., Dantzler, J., & Siders, J. A. (2012). Creating a digital ecosystem for the gifted education classroom. Journal for Advanced Academics, 23(4), 1-21.
Black, J. & Browining, K. (2011). Creativity in digital art education teaching practices. Art Ed- ucation, 64(5), 19-34.
Choi, H., & Piro, J. (2009). Expanding arts education in a digital age. Arts Education Policy Re- view, 110(3), 27-34.
Cress, S. (2013). The digital doimain: Using today’s technologies to inspire engaging classroom experiences. Art Education, 66(1), 40-45.
Delacruz, E. M. (2009). Art education aims in the age of new media: Moving toward a global civil society. Art Education, 62(5), 13-18.
Duncan, P. (1997). Art education for new times. Studies in Art Education, 38(2) 69-79.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9(3), 173- 181.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales. Instru- ments designed to measure the attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6(Ms. No. 1225), 31 Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Introducing statistical methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Goldberg, M. (2006). Integrating the Arts: An Approach to Teaching and Learning in Multicultural and Multilingual Settings. New York, NY: Pearson
Gregory, D. (2009). Boxes with fires: Wisely integrating learning technologies into the art class- room. Art Education, 62(3), 47-54.
Hostert, N. (2010). Uncommon dialogue: digital critique beyond the art classroom. In R.W. Sweeny (Ed.), Interactions intersections: Art education in a digital visual culture (pp. 90-96). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Kahveci, M. (2010). Students’ perceptions to use technology for learning: Measurement integ- rity of the modified Fennema Sherman attitudes scales. The Turkish Online Journal of Ed- ucational Technology, 9(1), 185-201. Retrieved from http://20. 132.48.254/PDFS/EJ875782.pdf.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
O’Brien, B., Friedman-Nimz, R., Lacey, J., & Denson, D. (2005). From bits and bytes to C++ and Web sites: What is computer talent made of? Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 56–63.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417-441.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives and digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–7.
Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), 9.
Sabol, F. R. (2010). No Child Left Behind: A Study of Its Impact on Arts Education. Supported by a Grant for the National Art Education Foundation. Purdue University, West Lafayette.
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Explorin pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classrooms. Computers in Education, 59, 937-945.
Siegle, D. (2004). Identifying students with gifts and talents in technology. Gifted Child Today,27(4), 30-33, 64.
Siegle, D. (2009). Literacy in the 21st century: The fourth R-Video Recording. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 14-19.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2004). Notions of technology and visual literacy. Studies in Art Education:A Journal of Issues and Research, 46(1), 88-91.
Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) (2013). Forks in the Road: The Many Paths of Arts Alumni. Retrieved from http://snaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2013/SNAAP Annual Report 2013.pdf.
Tillander, M. (2011). Creativity, technology, art, and pedagogical practices. Art Education, 64(1), 40-46.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Domain-Specific Giftedness: Applications in School and Life. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd edition) (pp. 358-376).
