VISUALIZING SOLUBILITY: A STUDY ON GIFTED STUDENTS’ GRAPH INTERPRETATION ABILITIES

Abstract

This study aimed to determine gifted students’ levels of skill in reading and interpreting solubility-related graphs, as well as performing interpolation and extrapolation using graphical data. A case study design, one of the descriptive research methods, was employed. As part of this design, a two-part test was used as the data collection tool. After piloting the test, it was administered to 64 high school gifted students who had completed a course on “Solubility and Factors Affecting Solubility” and who voluntarily participated in the study. The data collected were analyzed using basic statistical methods. The results indicated that gifted students performed better in reading solubility graphs than in interpreting them. However, their extrapolation skills were found to be below the expected level. Moreover, while there was a relationship between the students’ conceptual understanding and their graphical skills, deficiencies in graph-related competencies were more pronounced. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a guide for future efforts aimed at improving graphing skills—one of the key components of scientific process skills.

Keywords: gifted education, scientific process skills, graph literacy, graph reading, graph interpretation

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

This study was reviewed and approved by the Yildiz Technical University, Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Meeting Date: 02.05.2025, Meeting Number: 2025.05). The committee confirmed that this research, conducted within a Science and Art Center (SAC), is exempt from formal institutional review requirements, as such in-class studies are covered under institutional regulations. All procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant institutional and national guidelines. This research was conducted in a classroom setting within SAC. According to institutional regulations, such in-class action studies are exempt from formal ethics committee review. The author declares no competing interests.

REFERENCES  

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ayverdi, L., Girgin, D., Satmaz, İ., & Önder, E. Y. (2025). Examining the effects of science curriculum and activities developed for gifted students in Turkey. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 14(2), 115–150.

Barclay, W. L. (1985). Graphing misconceptions and possible remedies using microcomputer based labs. TERC-TR--85-5. Technical Education Research Center, Cambridge, MA. (ED264129).

Barut, M., & Yüce, Z. (2025). Investigation of the relationship between scientific process skills, self-regulation skills, and academic achievement of middle school students in science. World Journal of Education, 15(1), 78–92.

Bayazıt, İ. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının grafikler konusundaki bilgi düzeyleri [Prospective teachers’ understanding of graphs]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(4), 1325–1346.

Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750–752.

Beler, Ş. (2009). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerin fotosentez konusu ile ilgili grafikleri okumada ve yorumlamada karşılaştıkları güçlüklerin belirlenmesi [Determining 8th grade students' difficulties in reading and interpreting graphs of photosynthesis subject], (Unpublished unpublished master's thesis). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Türkiye.

Bengtsson, L. A., & Ottosson, T. (2006). What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students’ results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 43–62.

Ben-Zvi, D. (2004). Reasoning about data analysis. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. B. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical reasoning, literacy and thinking (pp. 121–146). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Berg, C. A., & Philips, D. G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323–344.

Berg, C., & Boote, S. (2017). Format effects of empirically derived multiple-choice versus free-response instruments when assessing graphing abilities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9678-6

Bowen, G. M., & Roth, M. W. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088.

Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real‐time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385–395.

Brasell, H. M. (1990). Graphs, graphing, and graphers. In M. R. Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher (pp. 69–85). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Ceylan, Ö. (2024). Changes in scientific process skills and reflective thinking skills towards problem-solving of gifted students: A summer school practice. Reflective Practice, 25(3), 286–303.

Coştu, B. (2007). Comparison of students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual and graphical chemistry gas problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 379–386.

Coştu, B. (2010). Algorithmic, conceptual and graphical chemistry problems: A revisited study. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 22(8), 6013–6025.

Coştu, F. (2023). Gifted students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual, and graphical questions. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(4), 600-614. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.600  

Coştu, F., Ercan, O., & Coştu, B. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının grafik okuma ve yorumlama düzeyleri [Pre-service science teachers’ levels of graph reading and interpretatio]. The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, (44), 194-213.

Çalık, M., & Ayas, A. (2004). Farklı öğrenim seviyesindeki öğrencilerin çözünme hakkındaki anlamaları: Olay odaklı bir karşılaştırma [Understanding of dissolution among students at different learning levels: A case-based comparison]. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 61–81.

Çelik, H., & Pektaş, H. M. (2017). Graphic comprehension and interpretation skills of preservice teachers with different learning approaches in a technology-aided learning environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 1–17.

Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project work]. Trabzon: Celepler.

Dolapcıoğlu, S., & Subaşı, M. (2022). The relationship between scientific process skills and science achievement: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Science Learning, 5(2), 363–372.

Dori, Y. J., & Sason, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250.

Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In G. Booker, P. Cobb, & T. N. De Mendicuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–35). Program Committee of the 14th PME Conference.

Gizaw, G., & Sota, S. (2023). Improving science process skills of students: A review of literature. Science Education International, 34(3), 216–224.

Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307   

Gültekin, C., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2016). 9. ve 10. sınıf kimya dersi öğretim programlarının beceri ve içerik kazanımları ile ölçme-değerlendirme yaklaşımlarının grafikler açısından analizi [Analysis of skill and content acquisitions and assessment-evulation approaches of the 9th and 10th grade chemistry ınstructional curriculum in terms of graphs]. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 163–184.

Gültepe, N. (2016). Reflections on high school students' graphing skills and their conceptual understanding of drawing chemistry graphs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 53–81.

Kaleli Yılmaz, G., & Yurtyapan, M. İ. (2021). Investigation of graphic reading and interpretation skills in socio-scientific-based problem situations: The example of COVID-19 parabolic graph. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(4), 2204–2227.

Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.

Karatay, S. K., Bakırcı, H., & Bülbül, S. (2024). Mobile learning supported science teaching application: Electric charges and electric energy. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12631-0

Kılıç, D., Sezen, N., & Sarı, M. (2012). A study of pre-service science teachers’ graphing skills. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2937–2941.

Köse, M. A. (2011). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde istatistik ve grafik kullanım tekniklerinin öğrencilerin grafik okuma becerisine etkisi [Teaching of social studies students in statistics and graphics that the students use graph techniques the effect of students' ability to read graphics] (Unpublished Master Thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye.

Kurnaz, M. A. (2013). An analysis of Turkish high school students' performance on conceptual, algorithmic and graphical physics problems. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 3(7), 698–714.

Kwon, O. N. (2002). The effect of calculator-based ranger activities on students’ graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics, 102(2), 57–67.

Marek, E. A. (1986). They misunderstand, but they’ll pass. The Science Teacher, 53(9), 32–35.

McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(7), 571–579.

Memnun, D. S. (2013). Ortaokul yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin çizgi grafik okuma ve çizme becerilerinin incelenmesi [Examining of line graphic reading and drawing skills of secondary school seventh grade students] Turkish Studies, 8(12), 1153–1167.

Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369–383.

MoNE. (2013). Fen bilgisi dersi öğretim programı (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar)[Science course curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades)]. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.

MoNE. (2018). Fen bilgisi dersi öğretim programı (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar)[Science course curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades)]. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.

MoNE. (2024). TYMM Fen bilgisi dersi öğretim programı (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar)[Science course curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades)]. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.

OECD. (2019a). Education at a glance database. Retrieved November 23, 2025 from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2019/09/education-at-a-glance-2019_892e172e.html

OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 results volume I: What students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved November 23, 2025 from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2019/12/pisa-2018-results-volume-i_947e3529.html   

Okur, M., & Güngör Seyhan, H. (2025). Mobile technology-enhanced 5E learning model in physics labs: An analysis of graph drawing and interpretation skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1–26.

Özalp, D. (2023). Science curriculum requirements: Science process skills in textbook activities. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 13(1), 123–141.

Paçacı, Ç. (2024). Gifted education in Türkiye from the perspectives on Science and Art Centers (SAC): Issues and suggestions. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 11(1), 23–25.

Parmar, R. S., & Signer, B. R. (2005). Sources of error in constructing and interpreting graphs: A study of fourth- and fifth-grade students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(3), 250–261.

Perdana, R., Asrial, A., & Maison, M. (2022). The effect of science attitudes toward science process skills of junior high school students in Jambi. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 23(2), 360–372.

Planinic, M., Susac, A., Ivanjek, L., & Milin Šipuš, Ž. (2019). Comparing student understanding of graphs in physics and mathematics. In G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, & B. S. Eylon (Eds.), Mathematics in physics education (pp. 189–212). Cham: Springer.

Potgieter, M., Harding, A., & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197–218.

Roth, W. M., Boven, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph-related practice between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977–1019.

Selamet, C. S. (2014). Beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin tablo ve grafik okuma ve yorumlama başarı düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Teaching of social studies students in statistics and graphics that the students use graph techniques the effect of students' ability to read graphics] (Unpublished Master Thesis). Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Türkiye.

Stavridou, F., & Kakana, D. (2008). Graphic abilities in relation to mathematical and scientific ability in adolescents. Educational Research, 50(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880801920429

Stefanel, A. (2019). Graph in physics education: From representation to conceptual understanding. In G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, & B. S. Eylon (Eds.), Mathematics in physics education (pp. 167–188). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_9   

Suparman, A. R., Rohaeti, E., & Wening, S. (2024). Student misconception in chemistry: A systematic literature review. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 14(2), 238–252.

Svec, M. T. (1995, April). Effect of micro-computer based laboratory on graphing interpretation skills and understanding of motion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, USA.

Şen, A. Z., & Nakipoğlu, C. (2012). Ortaöğretim kimya ders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından incelenmesi [Analyze of high school chemistry textbooks in terms of science process skills]. Kırşehir Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 47–65.

Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2004). How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs? Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 127–132.

Taşar, M. F., Kandil İngeç, Ş., & Ünlü Güneş, P. (2002, September). Grafik çizme ve anlama becerisinin saptanması [Determining the ability to draw and understand graphs]. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, ODTÜ, Ankara.

Taşdemir, A., Demirbaş, M., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2005). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin öğrencilerin grafik yorumlama becerilerini geliştirmeye yönelik etkisi [The effect of cooperative learning method in science education on improving graphic interpretatıon skills of the students]. Gazi Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 81–91.

Temiz, B. K., & Tan, M. (2003). İlköğretim fen öğretiminde temel bilimsel süreç becerileri [The primary science pıocess skills in elementary school science teaching]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 28(127), 18–24.

Uyan, T., & Önen, A. S. (2013). Bilgisayar destekli öğretim uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının grafiksel beceri, tutum ve başarılarına etkisi [The effects of computer aıded teachıng applıcatıons on graphıcal skıll, attıtude and performances of pre-servıce teachers]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 331–340.

Watson, J., Fitzallen, N., & Kelly, B. (2024). Interpolation and extrapolation in Year 5 STEM activities: Exploring data about viscosity without advanced statistics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 36(4), 815–848.

Wu, Y. (2004, July). Singapore secondary school students’ understanding of statistical graphs. Paper presented at the 10th International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME), Danish Technical University, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Yayla, G., & Özsevgeç, T. (2015). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin grafik becerilerinin incelenmesi: Çizgi grafikleri oluşturma ve yorumlama [The examination of secondary school students’ graphic skills: construction and ınterpretation of line graphs]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 23(3), 1381–1400.

Yeniçeri, Ü., & Bulut, S. (2023). Türkiye’de ortaöğretime geçiş sınavlarında sorulan grafik sorularının grafik okuryazarlığı becerileri açısından incelenmesi [An investigation of graphic questions asked in secondary education transition exams in Türkiye in terms of graphic literacy skills]. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 24(3), 1715–1741.

Yıldız, A. (2022). Examining gifted primary school students’ logical reasoning ability. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 9(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.892597   

Yildiz, C., & Yildiz, T. G. (2021). Exploring the relationship between creative thinking and scientific process skills of preschool children. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, Article 100795.

Zeren, M. A. (1994). Kimyacılar için matematik [Mathematics for chemists]. İstanbul: Birsen Yayınevi.