Öğretmenlerin Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Öğretim İhtiyaçlarını Karşılama Yetkinlik Ölçeğinin Uyarlanması ve Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 187 - 220, 29.03.2024

Zekai Ayık , Muhammet Davut Gül , Mehmet Fatih Karacabey

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1268279

Öz

Öğretmenlerin sahip oldukları pedagojik yetkinlikler özel yetenekli öğrencilerin özel eğitim ihtiyaçlarının etkili bir şekilde karşılanmasında hayati öneme sahiptir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın amacı farklı branşlarda öğretim yapan öğretmenlerin özel yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimi için gerekli olan pedagojik yetkinliklerini incelemek için Jarrah ve Almarashdi (2019) tarafından geliştirilen ölçeğin Türkçe diline uyarlamasını yapmak ve uyarlanan ölçeği kullanarak farklı branşlarda öğretmenlerin yetkinliklerini araştırmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda ilk olarak öğretmenlerin pedagojik yetkinliklerini araştıran ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlanması yapılmış daha sonra farklı değişkenlere göre bu yetkinliğin nasıl farklılaştığı ilişkisel tarama yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Orijinal ölçeğin öğretmen yetkinliği (9 madde) ve okul desteği (10 madde) olmak üzere iki alt boyutu bulunmaktadır. Yapılan geçerlik analizleri sonucunda uyarlanan ölçeğin öğretmen yetkinliği 8 madde ve okul desteği ise 4 madde içermektedir. Uyarlanan ölçeğin güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda Cronbach alfa katsayısı ise 0,92 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin uygulanmasından sonra elde edilen bulgulara göre öğretmenlerin özel yetenekli öğrencilerin özel eğitim ihtiyaçlarını karşılama yetkinliklerinin düşük seviyede olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen bulgular karşısında, bu çalışma öğretmenlerin yetkinliklerinin artırılması için hizmet öncesi ve hizmet içi uygulamaya dayalı meslekli eğitim alması gerektiği vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özel Yetenekli Öğrenciler, Öğretmen Yetkinliği, Ölçek Uyarlama, Özel Eğitim

Adaptation of Teachers' Competency for Meeting the Instructional Needs of Gifted Students Scale and Investigation of Some Variables

Öz

Teachers' pedagogical competencies are vital in meeting the special education needs of gifted students effectively. In this context, the aim of this study is to adapt the scale developed by Jarrah and Almarashdi (2019) to the Turkish language in order to examine the pedagogical competencies of teachers teaching in different branches necessary for the education of gifted students and to investigate the competencies of teachers in different branches using the adapted scale. For this purpose, firstly, the scale investigating teachers' pedagogical competencies was adapted into Turkish, and then how this competency differs according to different variables was examined with the relational survey method. The original scale has two sub-dimensions: teacher competence (9 items) and school support (10 items). As a result of the validity analyses, the adapted scale includes 8 items for teacher competence and 4 items for school support. As a result of the reliability analysis of the adapted scale, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to be 0.92. According to the findings obtained after the application of the scale, it was seen that teachers' competence in meeting the special education needs of gifted students was at a low level. In the face of the findings, this study emphasizes that teachers should receive professional training based on pre-service and in-service practice in order to increase their competencies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gifted Students, Teacher Competency, Scale Adaptation, Special Education

Kaynakça

• Akar, İ. (2020). Consensus on the competencies for a classroom teacher to support gifted students in the regular classroom: A delphi study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.6
• Akar, İ. (2021). Competencies for a classroom teacher to support gifted students in the regular classroom: A qualitative research. Kastamonu Education Journal, 29(2), 460-479. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.813339
• Al-Oweidi, A. M. (2019). The impact training of a program on improving the cognitive competencies of teachers in identifying gifted preschoolers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.539724
• Altıntas, E., & Ilgun, S. (2016). The term gifted child from teachers view. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(10), 957–965. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2016.2762
• Ataman, A. (2003). Üstün zekalı ve üstün yetenekli çocuklar [Gifted and Talented Students]. In A. Ataman (Ed.), Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş [Introduction to special education and children with special needs] (pp. 173–195). Gündüz Eğitim Yayınları.
• Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., & Capobianco, B. M. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210369257
• Berman, K. M., Schultz, R. A., & Weber, C. L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher training. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511428307
• Besançon, M. (2013). Creativity, giftedness and education. Gifted and Talented International, 28(1–2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678410
• Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. Taylor & Francis.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods in education] (25th ed.). Pegem.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Taylor and Francis.
• Çelikten, Y. (2017). Gifted children and BILSEM. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 4(3), 87–104.
• Cheung, H. Y., & Phillipson, S. N. (2008). Teachers of gifted students in Hong Kong: competencies and characteristics. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(2), 143–156.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. National Staff Development Council, 12.
• Davaslıgil, Ü. (2004). Differentiated education program for gifted children in early childhood. In 1. Turkey Gifted Children Congress, Selected Papers (pp. 289–300).
• Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Wiley.
• Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning Style Inventory. Price Systems.
• Feldhusen, J. (1982). Myth: Gifted education means having a program!: Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 37–41.
• Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Saturday and summer programs. In N. Colangelo (ed.) Handbook of gifted education (pp. 197–208). Allyn & Bacon.
• Feldhusen, J. F., & Ruckman, D. R. (1988). A guide to the development of Saturday programs for gifted and talented youth. Gifted Child Today, 11, 56–61.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Gabrijelčič, M., & Konrad, S. Č. (2019). Analyzing teachers’ competencies in regular classroom practice with gifted students in Slovenia. In J. L. Vodopivec, L. Jančec, & T. Štemberger (Eds.), Implicit pedagogy for optimized learning in contemporary education (pp. 166–183). IGI Global.
• Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J., & Cordy, M. (2011). Mathematics for gifted students in an arts-and technology-rich setting. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 397-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400303
• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
• Gagne, F. (2009). Building gifted into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Leading change in education: The festschrift of Dr Joyce Van Tassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Prufrock Press Inc.
• Godor, B. P. (2019). Gifted Metaphors: Exploring the metaphors of teachers in gifted education and their impact on teaching the gifted. Roeper Review, 41(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1553219
• Gómez-Arizaga, M. P., Conejeros-Solar, M. L., & Martin, A. (2016). How good is good enough? A community-based assessment of teacher competencies for gifted students. SAGE Open, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680687
• Guskin, S. L., Peng, C.-Y. J., & Majd-Jabbari, M. (1988). Teachers’ perception of giftedness. Gifted Quarterly, 32(1), 216–222.
• Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115–121.
• Hertzog, N. B. (1998). Open-ended activities: Differentiation through learner responses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 212–227.
• Hodges, J., Mun, R. U., Jones Roberson, J., & Flemister, C. “Tedd.” (2021). Educator perceptions following changes in gifted education policy: Implications for serving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(4), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211023796
• Howell, H., & Bressler, J. (1988). Research on teaching styles of teachers of the gifted. Roeper Review, 10(3), 144–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198809553110
• Hujar, J., & Matthews, M. S. (2021). Teacher perceptions of the primary education thinking skills program. Roeper Review, 43(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1923594
• Jarrah, A. M., & Almarashdi, H. S. (2019). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teaching gifted and talented learners in general education classrooms in the UAE. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 835–847. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.628395
• Johnsen, S. K. (2004). Definitions, models, and characteristics of gifted students. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (pp. 1–22). Prufrock Press.
• Jonnaert, P. (2002). Compétences et socioconstructivisme [Competencies and socioconstructivism]. De Boeck-Université.
• Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.
• Kahyaoğlu, M. (2013). A comparison between gifted students and non-gifted students’ learning styles and their motivation styles towards science learning. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(12), 890–896. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1415
• Karaman, Ö. (2017). Selection of students with superior intelligence and descriptive assessment relating to parents. Klinik Tıp Aile Hekimliği Dergisi, 9(5), 21–24.
• Karp, A. (2010). Teachers of the mathematically gifted tell about themselves and their profession. Roeper Review, 32(4), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.485306
• Kayış, A. (2010). Güvenirlik analizi [Reliability analysis]. In Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques] (pp. 403–419). Asil Yayıncılık.
• Kerry, T. (1983). Finding and helping the able child. Croom Helm.
• Khalil, M., & Accariya, Z. (2016). Identifying “good” teachers for gifted students. Creative Education, 07(03), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.73040
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302720
• Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272–281.
• MoNE. (2018). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Special education services regulation]. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr. Online, 20/12/2022.
• NAGC. (2021). Competencies for teachers: Gifted and talented, grades K-12.
• Narimani, M., & Mousazadeh, T. (2010). A comparison between the metacognitive beliefs of gifted and normal children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1563–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.236
• Oakland, T., Joyce, D., Horton, C., & Glutting, J. (2000). Temperament-based learning styles of identified gifted and nongifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 183–189.
• Olthouse, J. (2014). How do preservice teachers conceptualize giftedness? A metaphor analysis. Roeper Review, 36(2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884200
• Reis-Jorge, J., Ferreira, M., Olcina-Sempere, G., & Marques, B. (2021). Perceptions of giftedness and classroom practice with gifted children – an exploratory study of primary school teachers. Qualitative Research in Education, 10(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.8097
• Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–280). Cambridge University Press.
• Rowley, J. (2012). Professional development needs of teachers to identify and cater for gifted students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 75–80.
• Sayi, A. K. (2018). Teachers’ views about the teacher training program for gifted education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 262–273.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
• Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31–37). Prufrock Press.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA (Vol. 724). Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
• Thomson, D. L. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 662–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100405
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review, 35, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.740603
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 1–23). Prufrock Press.
• VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
• Yakut, A. D., Akgül, S., & Tuncer, A. T. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of students with additional support needs. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 5(11), 1916–1953.