71-7437 EBERLE, Betty Jobes, 1938- MATHEMATICS PROGRAM FOR GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. A PARTICIPANT FOLLOW UP, SUMMERS 1964 THROUGH 1969 AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, general University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany , Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by Betty Jobes Eberle 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED MATHEMATICS PROGRAM FOR GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS A PARTICIPANT FOLLOW UP Summers 3.964 through 1969 at The Ohio State University DISSERTATION • Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Betty Jobes Eberle, B.S.Ed., M.Ed, * -X- X X X X The Ohio State University 1970 Aporoved by C / Adviser College of Education PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my thanks to my advisor, Dr. Harold Trimble. Without his assistance and confidence in me, completion of this dissertation would have been impossible. Special thanks are due to Dr. Harold Brown who not only served as a member of my reading committee, but also made available to me the records of the SSTP program from which I obtained much of my data. I am grateful to Dr. Herbert Coon v/ho served as a member of my reading committee. He also was my advisor for my studies in the area of Teacher Education. I wish to recognize Dr. Arnold Ross, who lectures so ably to the SSTP participants, for his help with my study. I am grateful to Dr. Arthur White v;ho kindly helped, me with the computer analysis of my data. I give very personal thanks to Dr. Leslie Miller. His confidence in me has greatly aided me in my years of under­ graduate and graduate study. He also served as my advisor for my studies in the area of Mathematics. I wish to thank my husband. Art, for his oatience during my college study and during the comploti.on of this dissertation. Finally, I am grateful to my daughter, Linda, who watched her mother's progress all through this study. 11 VITA September 8, 1938 .... Born, Bartlett, Ohio i960 .................... B.S.Ed., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1963-1966 ............... Teacher of Mathematics West High School, Columbus, Ohio 1964 .................... M.Ed., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1966-196 7 ............... Academic Year Institute at The Ohio State University, Sponsored by The National Science Foundation 1967-1966 ............... Teacher of Mathematics West High School, Columbus, Ohio I96S-I97O ............... Teaching Associate, Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field; Mathematics Education Studies in Mathematics Education. Professor Harold C. Trimble Studies in Mathematics. Professor Leslie H. Miller Studies in Teacher Education. Professor Herbert L. Coon ] 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................... il VITA ..........................................................ill LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................ vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 Background for the Problem Purpose of the Study Specific Objectives of the Study Scope of the Study Organization of the Dissertation II. REVIEW OF RESEARCH................................. 7 Special Needs of Mathematically Gifted Students The Student Science Training Program III. DESIGN OF STUDY .........................................17 Development of the Questionnaire The Sampling Procedures Student Records Record of Data IV. RESULTS FROM OBJECTIVE D A T A ........................... 23 Description of Participants in Sample Comparison of Sample with Total SSTP Population at The Ohio State University Present Status of the Participants Recruitment Evaluation of the Program Expectations versus Exneriences Success at End of Summer An Examnl.e of a Regression Analysis V. RESULTS FROM SUBJECTIVE D A T A ......................... 66 An Introduction Student Views of the Goals of the Program Faculty Views of the Goals of the Program Parents' Vi'"vs of the Goals of 'Jie Program i V The Per.t Thnn% about the Program The Worst Thin% about the Program Suggestions for Changes in the Program Commuters Further Comments VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................. Summary and Conclusions Recommendations for Further Study APPENDIX A ......................................................... è 9 B ............................ 97 C ...................... 99 D ............................................................ 106 E ............................................................ log F ............................................................ 115 G ............................................................ 122 H ............................................................126 1 130 J ............................................................134 K ............................................................147 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 156 V LIST OF TABLES Table I. Grade Conpletod in Hiph School .................. ?!\ 2. Type of High S c h o o l .................................. 24 3. Size of High S c h o o l .................................. 25 h. Geographical Distribution of the Students .... 26 5. Participation in Special Summer Programs .... 27 6. Participation in Mathematical Competitions . 2? 7. Participation in Science Fairs .................. 28 8. Mathematical Reading ............................. 30 9. Knowledge of How Mathematics is U s e d ............ 31 10. Sex of the Participants..............................33 11. Geographical Location of High School ........... 33 12. College Majors of Participants .................. 35 13. Amount of Education Completed .................... 36 14. Acquaintance with Previous Participant ......... 37 15. Reason for Choosing Program at Ohio State University........................................ 38 16. Person Most Influential in Decision to Apply . 39 17. Student Ratings of Importance of Aspects of P rogram ...............................................41 18. Item of Greatest Importance and Greatest Hindrance............................................ 42 19. Student Evaluation of the P r o g r a m .................. 44 20. Evaluation of Counselors...................... /j5 21. Usefulness of Program for Making You Use Your Full Potential ..... ........................ 46 22. Agreement - Disagreement Statements .............. 47 23. "I Found Wo Time for S l e e p " ......................... 52 vi LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Tnblo Paco ?J\-. "I Alv/ays Felt R u s h e d " ......................... 53 25. "The Counselors Were a Real H e i n .............. 5A 26. Exnectations and Experiences , . ............ $6 27. Correlation Between Rank and Three Statements . 60 2B. 02R Stepwise Repression with Rank on Test Scores for Dependent Variable ............................. 63 29. 02R Stepwise Regression with Student Rating of Imnortance of Intellectual Challenge as Denendent Variable ................................. 64 Vll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background for the Problem The Summer Science Training Program for High-Ability Secondary Students, SSTP, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, began in the summer of 1959. This program was intended "to provide the superior high school student with educational experience in science and mathematics beyond that normally available in high school courses". In 1969 there were 112 such programs at various educational insti­ tutions in the United States. In 195#, Dr. Arnold Ross initiated an SSTP program at Notre Dame University as an experiment. He offered inten­ sive mathematical experience to talented young prople. The following year, 1959, the program was no longer experimental but was well established. It lasted at Notre Dame University under the direction of Dr. Ross from 1959 through 1963. Then Dr. Ross established the program at The Ohio State University where it has been in operation since 1964. During the summer of 1969, this researcher became interested in the program. She asked who these young people were, what the program was trying to do, what happened to the participants after their summer in college, what was the 1 2 impact of the program on the participants. The general feeling of the people involved in the program at The Ohio State University was that it was "useful". They were sure it made an "impact on the lives of the young people involved". No study had been made at this university. Yet each year high school students make about I6OO inquiries. Of these, 250 to 300 complete application forms. Of these, 60 participants are selected. These students are given scholarships by the National Science Foundation so that they can afford the experience. Very competent professirs spend many hours making this program work. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to carry out a partial evaluation of the Summer Science Training Program, SSTP, which is directed by Dr. Arnold Ross and Dr. Harold Brown at The Ohio State University. This study examined the students who have participated in the summer program at this university to see what tyne of student attended the program. It attemnted to determine the goals of the program at this institution. Here the researcher was interested in the stated goals of the urogram as expressed by the directors and as expressed in the literature. The researcher was also interested in learning the goals as expressed by