Üstün yeteneklilere özgü farklılaştırılmış sorgulama temelli fen ders modülleri: Uygulamaya yönelik görüşler

Year 2020, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 64 - 74, 31.12.2020

Bestami Buğra Ülger , Salih Çepni

https://doi.org/10.47156/jide.847514

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimlerinde özel farklılaştırma yaklaşımları ve stratejilerin kullanılması gerektiği bilinmektedir. Bu nedenle ülkemizde eksikliği hissedilen ve MEB tarafından 2023 vizyon belgesi ve MEB-TUBITAK tarafından hazırlanan üstün yetenekli strateji belgesinde üstün yeteneklilere özgü yaklaşım, materyal ve öğretim planı geliştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bu bağlamda üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için fen derslerine yönelik farklılaştırılmış bağlam temelli modüller geliştirilmiş ve uygulanmıştır. Modüllerin uygulayıcısı olan öğretmenin modüller hakkındaki görüşleri bu çalışmanın konusudur. Çalışma durum çalışması desenine göre düzenlenmiş olup, katılımcı olarak öğretmene modüllere ilişkin görüşleri sorulmuştur. Toplanan veriler betimsel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar pozitif ve negatif görüşler olarak kategorilendirilmiş, kategorilerde öğretmen tarafından önemli olarak görülen modül ve süreçle ilgili noktalar blirtilmiş ve benzer materyallerin ileriye dönük uygulamaları için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Sorgulama temelli yaklaşım, Öğretmen görüşleri, Fen eğitimi, Üstün yetenekli eğitimi, Ders materyali

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK

Project Number

1059B141501092

Differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules specific to gifted students: Views regarding practice

Abstract

We know that special approaches and strategies should be used in the education of gifted students. For this reason, it is aimed to develop an approach, material and teaching plan specific to gifted people in the gifted strategy document prepared by MNE-TUBITAK in the 2023 vision document of the Ministry of National Education. In this context, differentiated context-based modules for the science lessons of gifted students were developed and applied. The opinions of the teacher, who is the implementer of the modules, about the modules are the subject of this study. The study was a case study, and the teacher and their views on the modules were asked and the data were analyzed. The results obtained were categorized as positive and negative opinions, and suggestions were made for future applications of similar materials.

Keywords

Inquiry-based approach, teacher's opinions, science education, gifted education, lesson material

Project Number

1059B141501092

References

• Altintas, E. & Ozdemır, A. S. (2015). The effect of differentiation approach developed on creativity of gifted students: cognitive and affective factors. Educational Research and Reviews, 10 (8), 1191-1201.
• Baum, S. M., Cooper, C. R., & Neu, T. W. (2001). Dual differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 477-490.
• Biological Science Curriculum Study (2006). Why Does Inquiry Matter? Because That’s What Science Is All About! Kendall/Hunt Publıshıng Company, ABD.
• Callahan, C. M. (2017). The characteristics of gifted and talented students. In Fundamentals of Gifted Education (pp. 153-166). Routledge.
• Coleman, M. R., & Shah-Coltrane, S. (2010). U-STARS~ PLUS Science Literature Connections: Using Science, Talents, and Abilities to Recognize Students~ Promoting Learning for Underrepresented Students. Council for Exceptional Children.
• Çalikoğlu, B. S., & Kahveci, N. G. (2015). Altering depth and complexity in the science curriculum for the gifted: results of an experiment. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 16 (1), 1-22.
• Çepni, S. (2018). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
• Ekert, S., Rotthowe, L., & Weiterer, B. (2012). Training modules-competence and outcome orientation in educational provision within the transitional sector. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, 4, 28-31.
• Farkas, S., Duckett, A. (2008). High achieving students in the era of NCLB: Results from a national teacher survey. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
• Goodhew, G. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students. A&C Black.
• Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253.
• Jolly, J. L., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994–2003: A disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 427-446.
• Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 71-91). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Kaplan, S.N. (2009). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Keskin, M. Ö., Samancı, N. K., & Aydın, S. (2016). Bilim ve sanat merkezleri: mevcut durumları, sorunları ve çözüm önerileri. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi (UYAD), 1(2).
• LaBanca, F. (2007). The Connecticut Science Fair: impressions of sixty years of innovation. Connecticut. Journal of Science Education, 45, 14-18.
• LaBanca, F. (2008). Impact Of Problem Fındıng On The Qualıty Of Authentıc Open Inquıry Scıence Research Projects. A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Instructional Leadership in the Department of Education and Educational Psychology at Western Connecticut State University.
• Linn-Cohen, R., & Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Unlocking the GATE to differentiation: A qualitative study of two self-contained gifted classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(2), 227-259.
• Massé, L. (2001). Direction of gifted education in the first decade of the 21st century: A step back, continuity, and new directions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 170-173.
• Maeng, J. L., & Bell, R. L. (2015). Differentiating science instruction: Secondary science teachers' practices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2065-2090.
• McGee, C. (2018). Artful Teaching and Science Investigations: A Perfect Match. Gifted Child Today, 41(1), 41-53.
• Montgomery, D. (2013). Gifted and talented children with special educational needs: Double exceptionality. Routledge.
• Moon, J. (2002). The module & programme development handbook: A practical guide to linking levels, learning outcomes & assessment. London: Stylus Publishing Inc. Murphy, C., Smith, G., & Broderick, N. (2019). A Starting Point: Provide Children Opportunities to Engage with Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Research in Science Education, 1-35.
• Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Prufrock Press.
• Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65.
• Reis, S. M. & Housand, A. M. (2008). Characteristics of gifted and talented learners: Similarities and differences across domains. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Ed.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merril/ Prentice Hall.
• Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Technical and administration manual. Creative Learning Press, Inc., Mansfield, CT.
• Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D. B., Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
• Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189-213.
• Russo, C. J., Harris, J. J., Ford, D. Y. (1996). Gifted education and law: A right, privilege, or superfluous? Roeper Review, 18, 179-182.
• Sak, U., Ayas, M. B., Sezerel, B. B., Öpengin, E., Özdemir, N. N., & Gürbüz, S. D. (2015). Gifted and Talented Education in Turkey: Critics and Prospects/Türkiye'de Üstün Yeteneklilerin Egitiminin Elestirel Bir Degerlendirmesi. Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Egitim Dergisi, 5(2), 110.
• Selçuk, Z. (2020). Eğitim 2023 vizyonu ışığında özel yeteneklilerin eğitimi. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi, 115, 7-13.
• Sumida M. (2017) Science Education for Gifted Learners. In: Taber K.S., Akpan B. (eds) Science Education. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam.
• Syafril, S., Yaumas, N. E., Ishak, N. M., Yusof, R., Jaafar, A., Yunus, M. M., & Sugiharta, I. (2020). Characteristics and educational needs of gifted young scientists: a focus group study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(2), 947-954.
• Trna, J. (2014). IBSE and Gifted Students. Science Education International, 25(1), 19-28.
• Trna, J., & Trnová, E. (2015). Experiments in the Development of Gifted Students in Science. Problemy dydaktyki fizyki, 129-136.
• Ugulu, I. (2020). Gifted students’ attitudes towards science. Int. J. Edu. Sci., 28(1–3), 7-14.
• Ülger, B. B., & Çepni, S. (2020). Evaluating the effect of differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules on gifted students' scientific process skills. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 10(4), 1289-1324.
• Ülger, B. B., Uçar, S., & Özgür, İ. (2014). İdareci, öğretmen ve öğrencilerin bakış açısından bilim sanat merkezlerinde uygulanan fen eğitimi programları. Elementary Education Online, 13(3).
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2018). American policy in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 41(2), 98-103.
• Yuen, M., Chan, S., Chan, C., Fung, D. C., Cheung, W. M., Kwan, T., & Leung, F. K. (2018). Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted students in regular classes: A project for primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 36-46.