Bir İlkokulun Paydaşları Üstün Yeteneklilere Yönelik Eğitim Programını Nasıl Değerlendiriyorlar?

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 2, 334 - 347, 25.05.2021

Ercan Öpengin

Öz

Bu araştırmanın genel amacı bir ilkokulda destek eğitim odası kapsamında üstün yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik yürütülen programa ilişkin okul paydaşlarının görüşlerini incelemektir. Durum çalışması şeklinde desenlenen araştırma, Eskişehir ilinde yer alan bir ilkokulda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları ise okul müdürü, destek eğitim odası öğretmeni, destek eğitim odasına devam eden üstün yetenekli öğrenciler, bu öğrencilerin velileri, destek eğitim odasına sınıfından öğrenci giden genel sınıf öğretmenleridir. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak yarı yapılandırılmış bireysel ve odak grup görüşmeleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen veriler sistematik analiz yaklaşımı ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sürecinde elde edilen bulgular sonucunda okul paydaşlarının yürütülen programa yönelik olumlu algıya sahip oldukları görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte katılımcılar özellikle programın okul ders saatleri içerisinde yürütülmesinden kaynaklı sorunları ve kaygılarını belirtmişlerdir. Araştırma sonucunda üstün yeteneklilere yönelik destek eğitim odalarında etkili programlar için paydaşların görüşleri doğrultusunda düzenlemelerin önemi ve paydaşlar arası işbirliğinin sağlanması ön plana çıkmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda etkili bir program için okullara, programların düzenlenmesinde ve işleyişinde daha fazla esnekliğin tanınması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üstün yetenekliler, Eğitim programı, Destek Eğitim Odası, Paydaş görüşleri

Destekleyen Kurum

Anadolu Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

1601E010

How Stakeholders Perceive Gifted Education Program In A Primary School?

Öz

The present research aims at determining the stakeholders opinion about a resource room programme for gifted students in a primary school. Structured as a case study, the research project was carried out in a primary school in the Eskisehir province of Turkey. Participants of the research consisted of the school headmaster, the teacher of the resource room, gifted students attending the programme, parents of gifted students and classroom teachers whose students attended the programme. Data used in the research were collected through semi structured interviews questions. The research data were analyzed using the systematic analysis approach. The findings of this research revealed that the programme has generally been positively perceived by stakeholders. On the other hand, the participants expressed their concerns and some problems, especially due to the programme was carried out during school hours. The study showed that in order for the gifted student pul-out programs to be efficient it should be collaboration between stakeholders. It is recommended that it should be given to schools more flexibility in organizing and operating programs for an effective programme.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gifted Students, Education Program, Resource Room, Stakeholders opinion

Proje Numarası

1601E010

Kaynakça

• Adelson, J. L., McCoach, D. B. & Gavin, M. K. (2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(1), 25-39. Alloway, T. P. & Elsworth, M. (2012). An investigation of cognitive skills and behavior in high ability students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 891-895. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.02.001 Archambault, F. X, Jr, Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. and Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Bedur, S., Bilgiç, N. ve Taşlıdere, E. (2015). Özel (üstün) yetenekli öğrencilere sunulan destek eğitim hizmetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 221-242. Belcastro, F. (1987). Elementary pull-out programs for the intellectually gifted--boon or bane? Roeper Review, 9, 208-212. Berg, B. L. ve Lune, H. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Çev: H. Aydın). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi Borland, J. H. (2013). Problematizing gifted education. Callahan, C. M., Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Editörler.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives içinde (s. 176-188). New York, NY: Routledge. Brighton, C.M. and Wiley, K. (2013). Analyzing pull-out programs: A framework for planning. Callahan, C. M., Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Editörler.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives içinde (s. 188-198). New York, NY: Routledge Brulles, D., Saunders, R. and Cohn, S. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 327-352. Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R. and Oh, S. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20-49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215 Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azano, A. P. and Hailey, E. P. (2015). What Works in gifted education: Documenting effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1–31. doi:10.3102/0002831214549448 Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R. and Oh, S. (2013). Status of elementary gifted programs. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Campbell, J. R. and Verna, M. A. (1998). Comparing separate class and pull-out programs for the gifted. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association’da sunulan bildiri. San Diego, CA. Clark, B. (2013). Growing up gifted: developing the potential of children at school and at home. (8th ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson. Cohen, L. M. (2006). Conceptual foundations for gifted education: stock-taking. Roeper Review, 28(2), 91-110. Cohen, R., Duncan, M. and Cohen, S. L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 33-37. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., and Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Philadelphia: John Templeton Foundation. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (4. Baskıdan Çeviri). (Çev: S. B. Demir). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayınları. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quanitative and qualitative Research. Upper saddle river, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Cox, J. and Daniel, N. (1984). The pull-out model. G/C/T, 34, 55-61. Çevik, M., & Yağcı, A. (2017). Destek eğitim odalarına ilişkin idareci ve sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri: Karaman ili örneği. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 58(2), 65-79. doi:10.9761/JASSS709 Dade County Public Schools. (1983). An evaluative overview of the Kendale Pilot Resource Program. FL: Miami. Office of Educational Accountability. Davis, G. A. and Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B. and Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson. Davison, L., Coates, D. and Johnson, S. (2005). The effects of a pull-out enrichment project on academically able 9-to 10-year olds: The Pate's Curriculum Enrichment Project. Gifted Education International, 20(3), 330-342. Delcourt, M. A., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G. and Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Charlottesville, VA: NRC/GT. Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G. and Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359–381. Dimitriadis, C. (2011). Developing mathematical ability in primary school through a ‘pull-out’programme: a case study. Education 3-13, 39(5), 467-482. Dimitriadis, C. (2012). How are schools in England addressing the needs of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A review of practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 59. Dimitriadis, C. (2016). Gifted programs cannot be successful without gifted research and theory: evidence from practice with gifted students of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(3), 221-236. Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). Why the public schools willcontinue to neglect the gifted. Gifted Child Today. March/April, 55-59. Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Editörler.), Handbook of Gifted Education içinde (s. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gallagher, J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 5-12. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. and Airasan, P. (2006). Educational research. competencises for analysis and applications. New Jersey: Pearson Ecucation Ltd. Geake, J. G. (2008). High abilities at fluid analogizing: A cognitive neuroscience construct of giftedness. Roeper Review, 30(3), 187-195. Gubbels, J., Segers, E. and Verhoeven, L. (2014). Cognitive, socioemotional and attitudinal effects of a triarchic enrichment program for gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 378–397. doi:10.1177/0162353214552565. Gubbins, E. J. (2013). Cognitive and affective outcomes of pull-out programs: Knowns and unknows. C. M. Callahan and H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Editörler), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives içinde (s. 176-188). New York, NY: Routledge. Gürgür, H. (2017). Eylem araştırması. A. Saban ve A. Ersoy (Editörler), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri (2. baskı) içinde (s. 1-50). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. 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. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253. Hong, E., Greene, M. T. and Higgins, K. (2006). Instructional practices of teachers in general education and gifted resource rooms: Development and validation of the instructional practice questionnaire. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 91-101. Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Ryser, G. R. and Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing general education practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 45-63. Kaufman, S. B. ve Sternberg R.J. (2008). Conception of giftedness, S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children içinde (s. 71-92) N.Y. Springer Science+Business Media Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127-136. Kulik, J. A. and Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77. Lazzelle, L. (2015). Student perceptions of engagement in part-time and full-time gifted programs. Doctoral dissertation. Southwest Baptist University. Long, L. C., Barnett, K. and Rogers, K. B. (2015). Exploring the relationship between principal, policy and gifted program scope and quality. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 118-140. Marshall, M. N., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage. Matthews, D. and Kitchen, J. (2007). Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5(3), 256-270. McCulloch, A. C. (2010). How stakeholders perceive gifted education: A study of beliefs held by stakeholders in elementary gifted education programs. Doctoral dissertation. Capella University. MEB. (2018). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Ankara: MEB Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. MEB. (2013). Üstün yetenekli bireyler strateji ve uygulama planı. Ankara: MEB Özel Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. MEB. (2015). Destek eğitim odası klavuzu. Ankara: MEB Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. S. Turan (Çev.Ed.), Ankara: Nobel Yayın. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi (İkinci Baskıdan Çeviri). (Çev: S. Akbaba-Altun ve A. Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi Yayınları. Moon, S. M., Swift, M. and Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class for fourth- and fifth-grade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 64-79. Moon, T.R., Tomlinson, C.A. and Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers. (NRC G/T Research Monograph No. 95124). Charlottesville, VA:University of Virginia. Morelock, M. J. and Morrison, K. (1999). Differentiating ‘developmentally appropriate’: The multidimensional curriculum model for young gifted children. Roeper Review, 21(3), 195-200. Morgan, A. (2007). Experiences of a gifted and talented enrichment cluster for pupils aged five to seven. British Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 144-153. Murphy, P. R. (2009). Essays on gifted education's impact on student achievement. The Florida State University. Nar, B. ve Tortop, H. S. (2017). Türkiye’de özel/üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için destek eğitim odası uygulaması: sorunlar ve öneriler. Aydın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 83-97. National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC. National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). State of the states in gifted education 2014–2015: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC. Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330-341. Osin, L. and Lesgold, A. (1996). A proposal for the reengineering of the educational system. Review of educational research, 66, 621–656. Pemik, K. (2017). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilere destek odasında verilen eğitime ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans tezi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and inclusive educational system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 536-569. Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280–282. Renzulli, J. S. and Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26-35. Ritrievi, G. G. (1988). An investigation of the pull-out model utilized in elementary gifted programs. Doctoral dissertation. Lehigh University. Robinson, A. and Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 8-25. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396. Sak, U. (2014). Üstün zekalılar: özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık. Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper Review, 20(February), 204-210. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P. and Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 176. Süel, E. (2017). Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için destek eğitim odası. M.Z. Leana-Taşcılar (ed.), Üstün yetenekli Çocukların Psikolojisi: Teoriden uygulamaya içinde (s.329-362). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Swiatek, M. A. and Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 118-130. Şahin, F. (2015). Üstün zekalı öğrencilerin eğitimine yönelik eğitsel stratejiler. F. Şahin (Ed.), Üstün zekalı ve üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimi içinde (s.3-20). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R. and Brimijoin, K. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145. Tortop, H. S. ve Dinçer, S. (2016). Destek eğitim odalarında üstün/üstün yetenekli öğrencilerle çalışan sınıf öğretmenlerinin uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 11-28. Tunalı-Erkan, D. (2018).Ortaöğretim kurumlarındaki destek eğitim odası uygulamasına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Uluslararası Liderlik Eğitimi Dergisi,2(2), 17-30. van der Meulen, R. T., van der Bruggen, C. O., Spilt, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout, M. and Bögels, S. M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child and Youth Care Forum,1-28. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1987). The ineffectiveness of the pull-out model in gifted education: A minority perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(4), 255–64. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 199-215,273. Yang, Y., Gentry, M. and Choi, Y. O. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 270–287. doi:10.1177/1932202X12451021. Yavuz, O. ve Yavuz, Y. (2016). Destek eğitim odasında uygulanan etkinliklerin ilkokul düzeyindeki üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin yaratıcılık becerilerine etkisi. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1-13. Yazıcıoğlu, T. (2020). Destek eğitim odalarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin destek eğitim odalarının işleyişine ilişkin görüşleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Erken Görünüm. doi: 10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.584392 Yin, (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Zeidner, M. and Schleyer, E. J. (1999b). Evaluating the effects of full-time vs part-time educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes and policy considerations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(4), 413-427. Ziegler, A. ve Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, ve R. F. Subotnik (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness and talent içinde (2. bs., s. 3–21). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Zubal, P. C. (2015). Middle school gifted students' academic achievement and perceptions of cognitive and affective experiences with participation in full-time or part-time gifted program service delivery models. Doctoral dissertation. Florida Gulf Coast University.