Üstün Yetenekli Olan ve Olmayan Öğrencilerin Dijital Çoklu Görev Performanslarına Yönelik Ebeveyn Görüşleri

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 601 - 614, 01.11.2022

Barış Mercimek

https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.935130

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, alanyazında sıklıkla yüksek zeka, güçlü çalışan bellek kapasitesi, yüksek hafıza gibi üst bilişsel yetenekleri doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak gösterdiği ifade edilen üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin ve üstün yetenekli olmayan öğrencilerin çoklu görev performansları hakkında ebeveyn görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Görüşme formu ile öğrencilerin gündelik hayattaki çoklu görev performansları, öğrenme süreçlerinde dijital araçların etkisi ve çoklu görev uğraşının başarıya etkisine yönelik veriler toplanmıştır. 12 üstün yetenekli, 13 üstün yetenekli olmayan öğrenci ebeveyni ile görüşülmüştür. Elde edilen nitel veriler için söylem ve içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Çoklu görev performansında başarıya yönelik olumlu görüşe sahip bireyler çoğunlukla üstün yetenek tanısı almış öğrenci ebeveynleri olmuştur. Üstün yetenekli çocuklarının çoklu görev performanslarında başarısız olduğunu ifade edenler olduğu gibi çocuklarının bu performanslarını olağanüstü bulan anne-babalar da olmuştur. Üstün yetenekli olmayan öğrenci aileleri, çocuklarının çoklu görev çabalarına sıklıkla olumsuz veya kuşkuyla yaklaşmışlardır. Her iki grupta, çoklu görev çabasına ılımlı yaklaşarak sonuçları hakkındaki belirsizliği araştırmacıyla paylaşan ebeveynler olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çoklu görev, üstün yetenek, öğrenme, aile

The Views of Gifted and Non-gifted Students’ Parents about Their Children’s Digital Multitasking Performances

Öz

The purpose of this study was to determine parental views about the multitask performances of non-gifted students and gifted students, who were frequently said to demonstrate directly or indirectly metacognitive abilities such as high intelligence, strong working memory capacity and high memory. An interview form was used to collect detailed information about the students’ multitask performances in their daily lives, about the influence of digital tools in their learning processes and about the influence of multitask efforts on their achievements. Within the scope of the study, interviews were held with the parents of 12 gifted and 13 non-gifted students. For the analysis of the qualitative data, content analysis and discourse analysis were applied. There were parents who considered their gifted children’s multitask performances to be excellent, while some parents reported that their children were not successful in this respect. Similar to the parents of gifted children, some of the parents of children who were not diagnosed as gifted were suspicious of their children’s multitask efforts. In addition, some parents in both groups had moderate views about these efforts and shared uncertainty about the related consequences with the researcher.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multitasking, gifted, learning, parent

Kaynakça

• Bellur S, Nowak K.L. & Hull K.S. (2015) Make it our time: In class multitaskers have lower academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior 53, 63–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.027
• Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M. & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers ve Education, 54(4), 927-931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024
• Brasel, S. A. & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 527-534. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0350
• Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allen and Bacon.
• Burak, L. (2012). Multitasking in the university classroom. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12.
• Clark, B. (2008). Growing up Gifted, 7. Baskı. Pearson Education, Inc.,Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
• Coens, J., Degryse, E., Senecaut, M. P., Cottyn, J. & Clarebout, G. (2011). Listening to an educational podcast while walking or jogging: Can students really multitask?. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 3(3), 23-33.
• Colom, R., Martínez-Molina, A., Shih, P. C. & Santacreu, J. (2010). Intelligence, working memory, and multitasking performance. Intelligence, 38(6), 543-551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.08.002
• Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L. & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. DOI: 10.1177/0011000006287390
• Dağlıoğlu, H. E. & Alemdar, M. (2010). Üstün yetenekli bir çocuğun ebeveyni olmak. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(3), 849-860.
• Davis G. A., Rimm S. B., Siegle D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Dindar, M. & Akbulut, Y. (2016). Effects of multitasking on retention and topic interest. Learning and Instruction, 41, 94-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.005
• Elliott, R. (1996). Discourse analysis: exploring action, function and conflict in social texts. Marketing Intelligence ve Planning, 14(6), 65-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02634509610131171
• Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E. & Conway, A. R. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 128(3), 309. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
• Eriksson, G. (2010). Authentic and virtual global connections: The transformation of gifted education. Gifted Education International, 27(1), 19-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002700105
• Felisoni, D. D. & Godoi, A. S. (2018). Cell phone usage and academic performance: An experiment. Computers ve Education, 117, 175-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.006
• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory 1. High ability studies, 15(2), 119-147. DOI: 10.1080/1359813042000314682
• Gee, J. P. (2004). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
• George, M. J., Russell, M. A., Piontak, J. R. & Odgers, C. L. (2018). Concurrent and subsequent associations between daily digital technology use and high‐risk adolescents’ mental health symptoms. Child development, 89(1), 78-88. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12819
• Grobman, J. (2009). A Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Approach to the Emotional Problems of Exceptionally and Profoundly Gifted Adolescents and Adults: A Psychiatrist's Experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 106-125.
• Halverson, R. & Smith, A. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-54. , DOI: 10.1080/10402454.2009.10784632
• Hannah, C. L. & Shore, B. M. (1995). Metacognition and high intellectual ability: Insights from the study of learning-disabled gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 95-109.
• Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R. & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research ,18(1).
• Heyder, A., Bergold, S. & Steinmayr, R. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning ve Teaching, 17(1), 27-44. DOI: 10.1177/1475725717725493
• Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J. & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), 6829-6833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801268105
• Jaušovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: an EEG study. Intelligence, 28(3), 213-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(00)00037-4
• Karakuş, F. (2010). Üstün yetenekli çocukların anne babalarının karşılaştıkları güçlükler. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 127-144.
• Kirschner, P. A. & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
• Kirschner, P. A. & van Merriënboer, J. G. (2013). “Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education”, Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
• Kraushaar, J. M. & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241-251.
• Lau, W. W. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the academic performance of university students. Computers in human behavior, 68, 286-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043
• Marsh, J., Hannon, P., Lewis, M. & Ritchie, L. (2017). Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(1), 47-60. DOI: 10.1177/1476718X15582095
• Mercimek, B. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerinde üstün yetenek ve bilgisayar temelli çoklu görev durumlarının öğrenmeye etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Mercimek, B., Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O. & Sak, U. (2019). Multitasking impairs learning from multimedia across gifted and non-gifted students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09717-9
• Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley ve Sons.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
• Ophir, E., Nass, C. & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587. DOI: www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0903620106
• Örün, Ö. & Akbulut, Y. (2019). Effect of multitasking, physical environment and electroencephalography use on cognitive load and retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 216-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.027
• Periathiruvadi, S. & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153-169. DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601
• Plowman, L. (2015). Researching young children's everyday uses of technology in the family home. Interacting with Computers, 27(1), 36-46. DOI:10.1093/iwc/iwu031
• Prensky, M. (2001). “Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1”, On The Horizon 9(5), 1-6.
• Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis, (20), 105-110.
• Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M. & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicología educativa, 17(2), 163-177.
• Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekalılar: Özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri. Ankara: Maya Akademi.
• 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), 110-132.
• Salvucci, D. D. & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological review, 115(1), 101-130. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101
• Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A. & Borst, J. P. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1819-1828). ACM.
• van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2020). Exploring the long-term relationship between academic-media multitasking and adolescents’ academic achievement. new media & society, 22(1), 140-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819861956
• Shin, M., Webb, A. & Kemps, E. (2019). Media multitasking, impulsivity and dual task ability. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 160-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.018
• Thompson, L. A. & Oehlert, J. (2010). The etiology of giftedness. Learning and individual Differences, 20(4), 298-307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.004
• Wang, Z. & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 493-513. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01641.x
• Watson, J. M. & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic bulletin ve review, 17(4), 479-485. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.479
• Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B. & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers ve education, 54(4), 1202-1211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.006
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yöntemleri (10. Bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Young, M. H. & Balli, S. J. (2014). Gifted and talented education (GATE) student and parent perspectives. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 236-246. D0I:1 0 ,1 1 7 7/10 7621 751 4544 030
• Zabatiero, J., Straker, L., Mantilla, A., Edwards, S. & Danby, S. (2018). Young children and digital technology: Australian early childhood education and care sector adults’ perspectives. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(2), 14-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23965%2FAJEC.43.2.02