Fen Bilimleri Ders Modüllerinin Üstün yetenekliler üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi: CGA Örneği

Year 2019, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 17 - 24, 30.01.2019

Bestami Buğra Ülger , Karen E. Irving

Abstract

Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerde zorlayıcılığın gerekliliği yaygın bir problemdir. Bu probleme yönelik olarak geliştirilene modüller bu çalışmanın konusunu oluşturmaktadır. Akademik yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik fen dersi modülleri oluşturmak için yetenekli öğrencilerin öğretmenleriyle işbirliği yapılmıştır. Araştırma, Columbus Gifted Academy'nin (CGA) bilimsel olarak yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersi öğretim sürecini öğrenmeyi amaçlamıştır. Ayrıca bu çalışma, CGA'nın standart sınıf öğretiminin bir parçası olarak bu modüllerin uygulanmasını değerlendirmeyi de amaçlamıştır. Araştırma ile ilgili ana kaygılar modüllerin öğretmen ve öğrenciler için faydalı olup olmadığı, modüllerin zayıf noktaları nelerdir, etkileri nasıl artırabilinir gibi temel soruları içermektedir.  Öğretmenlerle görüşmeler yapıldı. Öğrencilere uygulama öncesi ve sonrası akademik başarı testi standart sınıf öğretiminin bir parçası olarak uygulandı ve öğrencilerin fen başarısı hakkında modüller aracılığıyla bilgiler alındı. Sonuç olarak, fen bilgisi dersi modülleri, öğretimde önemli bir farklılık gösterebileceği bulundu. Eksik yönleri ortaya çıkartılarak modüllerin daha da geliştirilmesi için veri toplandı. 

Keywords

Fen öğretimi, Üstün yeteneklilik, sınıf içi öğretim, fen bilimleri ders etkinlikleri

The Effect of Science Lesson Modules on Gifted Students: The CGA Case

Abstract

It is a common problem that gifted students need to be challenged. We collaborated with teachers of gifted students to create science lesson modules intended for these academically talented pupils. The research aimed to evaluate the implementation of these modules as a part of standard classroom instruction of CGA. Are our modules beneficial for teacher and students, what are the weak points of our modules, how do we increase their effects are the main concerns about the research. Interviews were conducted with teachers and observations about the classroom teaching made. Student pre and posttests implemented as part of standard classroom instruction and provided information about students’ science achievement through modules. As a result, science lesson modules showed a significant difference on teaching. In addition to that we concluded that there are weak points of modules and need to enhance.

Keywords

Science teaching, gifted and talented, classroom instruction, science activities

References

• Assouline SG, Colangelo N, Heo N and Dockery L., (2013). High-Ability Students’ Participation in Specialized Instructional Delivery Models: Variations by Aptitude, Grade, Gender, and Content Area. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2) 135–147.
• Bachinski, J. (2009). Academic talent. In B. Kerr (Ed). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (vol. 1, pp. 6-9). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Cooper C R., Baum S M., Neu T W., (2005). Developing scientific talent in studies with special needs: AN alternative model for identification, curriculum and assessment. (In Ed. Johnsen K S, Kendrick J) Science Education For Gifted, Prufrock Pres, Inc., USA. Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
• Koshy, V. & Robinson, N.M. (2006) Too long neglected: gifted young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14 (2) 113-126.
• Marvasti AB (2014). Analysing Observations (In Ed. Uwe, F) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE Publications Inc.
• McCoach D.B, Gubbins EJ, Foreman J, Rubenstein LDV and Rambo-Hernandez K. (2014). Gifted Evaluating the Efficacy of Using Predifferentiated and Enriched Mathematics Curricula for Grade 3 Students: A Multisite Cluster-Randomized TrialD Child Quarterly 2014, Vol. 58(4) 272–286.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
• Miller S A, (2011). Designing a Middle School Gifted Education Program of Excellence Using Current Gifted Programming Models. Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University, School of Education, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
• Newman JL. & Hubner JP (2012). Designing Challenging Science Experiences for High-Ability Learners Through Partnerships With University Professors Gifted Child Today 35: 102.
• NGSS Lead States, (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States, Case Study 7: Gifted and Talented Students and the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Polit, D.F., & Hungler, B.P. (1995). Nursing research: Principles and methods (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
• Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 462-501.
• Reis, S.M. (2009). Challenging talented readers with research-based, engaging, enriched differentiated instructional strategies. International Reading Association Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
• Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is thing called giftedness and how do we develop it: A twenty- five year perspective. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 23(1), 3-54.
• Roulston K (2014). Analyzing Interviews (In Ed. Uwe, F) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE Publications Inc.
• Shaunessy-Dedrick E, Evans L, Ferron J, and Lindo M, 2015,Effects of Differentiated Reading on Elementary Students’ Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading. Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 59(2) 91–107.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research, 17, 273-285.
• Taber K S, (2010). Challenging Gifted Learners: General Principles for Science Educators; And Exemplification in The Context Of Teaching Chemistry. Science Education International, Vol.21, No.1, 5-30
• Tomlinson, C.A. (1995) Differentiating instruction for advanced learners in the mixed-ability middle school classroom. ERIC Digest E536. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
• Willis, J. 2007. Challenging Gifted Middle School Students. Principal Leadership, 8, 4 p38-42.
• Newman, J. L.,& Hubner, J. P. (2012). Designing Challenging Science Experiences for High Ability Learners through Partnerships With University Professors. Gifted Child Today, 35 (2), 102-115.
• Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences 20, 4, 308–317. Subotnik, R., Orland, M., Rayhack, K., Schuck, J., Edmiston, A., Earle, J., Crowe, E., Johnson, P., Carroll, T., Berch, D. & Fuchs, B. (2009). International Handbook on Giftedness. In L.V. Shavinina (ed.), Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice (1313-1326), Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
• Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Cope and grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(2), 75-90.
• Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. L. (2005). Science Education For Gifted. In Johnsen K S, Kendrick J (Eds). Developing an early passion for science through competitions. Prufrock Pres, Inc., USA.
• Betts, G. (2004) Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation, Roeper Review, 26:4, 190-191.
• Olenchak, F. R. (2001) Lessons learned from gifted children about differentiation, The Teacher Educator, 36:3, 185-198.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005) Gifted Programs and Services: What Are the Nonnegotiables?, Theory Into Practice, 44:2, 90-97