This study aimed to measure the effectiveness of gifted students centers in developing geometric

thinking. The sample consisted of sixty gifted students. The participants were distributed into two equal

groups. The control group composed of thirty students studying at Giftedness Resource Rooms in

Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and the experimental group composed of thirty students

studying at Gifted Center in Najran. A multiple-choice geometric thinking test was used as pretest and

posttest for both groups. Based on the analysis of data, results will be discussed.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of

gifted students in developing geometric thinking and

discovering the performance of the sample members on

the geometric thinking test in general, and on each level

alone according to the variables of group and gender, or

the interaction between them.

The results of the study indicated that the gifted student

centers are effective in developing geometric thinking.

The results also indicated that the levels of geometric

thinking can be mastered by the students when provided

by the appropriate circumstances and the educational

programs as conducted in the gifted centers, and these

results agree with Mason (1995, 1997b).

Gifted centers as an educational alternative for gifted

students are not the only alternative in KSA; however,

good preparation of these centers makes them an

educational alternative that helps develop and improve

thinking skills in general and geometric thinking in

particular; this is all what this study aimed at proving. Al-

Zoubi and Bani Abdel Rahman (2011) indicated the

effectiveness of gifted center through the administration,

characteristics of center, enrichment and teachers.

The results of this study portrayed the role of the gifted

centers in developing geometric thinking by finding out

the statistically significant differences in the students’

performances on the geometric thinking test and the test

of the levels of geometric thinking. This can be attributed

to the enrichment programs presented with the

mathematic syllabus based on the modern strategies of

instruction that helped the members of the experimental

group recognize the geometric shapes and distinguish

between them and comprehend their characteristics, as

shown in Carroll (1998) who believes that we could

achieve reasonable progress in geometric thinking when

we provide the students with enrichment activities and

programs that address their level of geometric thinking.

The advancement of the experimental group over the

control group members in the first three levels of

geometric thinking (visualization, descriptive, and

informal deductive levels) is attributed to the enrichment

activities and the instructional strategies used in teaching

the mathematics course in the gifted center which came

in concordance with all the levels of geometric thinking

included in this study. The activities and the programs

were prepared in light of the educational phases (The

information, phase, the direction orientation phase, the

explication phase, the free orientation phase, and the

integration phase), indicated by Van Hiele (1999) in

teaching geometry.

Some might ask about the factor or the group of factors

Al-Shehri et al. 1683

that contributed the most to the development and the

improvement of the students’ geometric thinking levels in

the experimental group; Is it their presence in the gifted

center with all the activities and programs and

instructional strategies that contributed to the

improvement? Is it the enrichment activities and

programs specialized for the mathematic course that

contributed to the improvement? Or is it the

methodologies followed by the mathematics teacher?

The answer to this question must take into consideration

the general concept of the alternative for the gifted

center; the center is the place, the curriculum, the

methodology, and the integration medium for the

students. Any discrepancy with these basic factors will

not fulfill the basic factors of the concept of the alternative

for the center. In this study the aim was not to discover

the effect of the general meaning of the center; however,

all the factors combined. The center, as a place or

curriculum, or instructional method, or even the

instructional method followed by the mathematic teacher

might have had the greatest effect in developing

geometric thinking, since it is difficult to control the effect

of these factors due to its interference.