Очное обучение для одаренных учеников в Турции: что об этом говорят учителя и эксперты?

156

Аннотация

Цель данного исследования — изучить предложения учителей и экспертов в области сопровождения одаренных детей по очному обучению одаренных учащихся. В этом исследовании использовался метод качественного анализа, а данные собирались путем открытого опроса и полуструктурированных интервью. Данные были проанализированы с помощью описательного анализа, включая кодирование и категоризацию. Целевую выборку составили 341 учитель и три эксперта. Результаты показали, что эксперты предлагали дисциплинарные и тематические учебные программы, а учителя — гибкий и смешанный формат обучения. Эксперты и учителя предложили различные критерии оценки эффективности школьной учебной программы для одаренных детей с точки зрения освоения учащимися жизненных навыков и навыков мышления, а также критерии оценки достаточности технического и дидактического оснащения школы. Результаты этого исследования демонстрируют общую картину открытия новой школы для одаренных детей с очным форматом обучения, а также разъясняют компетентным органам и семьям необходимость изменений в содержании учебных программ для одаренных детей.

Общая информация

Ключевые слова: очная форма обучения, обучение одаренных детей, учителя одаренных учащихся, метод качественного опроса, анализ потребностей

Рубрика издания: Эмпирические исследования

Тип материала: научная статья

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/cpse.2021100311

Для цитаты: Юредилли Г.Д., Чакар С.Н., Биджакджи М., Кексал М. Очное обучение для одаренных учеников в Турции: что об этом говорят учителя и эксперты? [Электронный ресурс] // Клиническая и специальная психология. 2021. Том 10. № 3. С. 208–230. DOI: 10.17759/cpse.2021100311

Литература

  1. Abosalem   Y.   Assessment    techniques    and    students’    higher-order    thinking skills. International Journal of Secondary Education, 2016, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20160401.11
  2. Azano A.P., Callahan C.M., Missett T.C. et al. Understanding the experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 2014, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 88–100. DOI: 10.1177/1932202X14524405
  3.  Bicakci M., Baloglu M. Gifted underachievement: Characteristics, causes and intervention. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 2020, pp. 1–28. DOI: 10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.607979
  4. Brulles D., Saunders R., Cohn S.J. Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2010, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 327–350.
  5. Caleon I.S., Subramaniam R. Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 2008, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 940–954. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20250
  6. Chan D.W. Assessing adjustment problems of gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the student adjustment problems inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2003, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 107–117. DOI: 10.1177/001698620304700202
  7. Choi M., Lee K. Theoretical proposal and consideration on longitudinal study of entrepreneurial gifted youth. Journal of Gifted and Talented Education, 2013, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 793–815. DOI: 10.9722/JGTE.2013.23.5.793
  8. Coleman A. The authentic voice of gifted and talented black males regarding their motivation to engage in STEM. Illinois Association for Gifted Children Journal, 2016, pp. 26–39. URL: https://digitalcommons.imsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=pres_pr (Accessed: 04.09.2021)
  9. Coleman L.J., Micko K.J., Cross T.L. Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2015, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 358–376 DOI: 10.1177/0162353215607322
  10. Cross T., Miller K.A. The overview of three models of publicly funded residential academies for gifted adolescents. In J.L. Van Tassel-Baska (ed.), Serving Gifted Learners Beyond the Traditional Classroom: A Guide to Alternative Programs and Services. Waco, TX: Prufrok Press, 2007, pp. 81–104.
  11. Farkas S., Duffett A. High achieving students in the era of NCLB: Results from a national teacher survey (Part 2). Washington, DC: Thomas E. Fordham Institute, 2008. 11 p.
  12. Feldhusen J.F., Sayler M.F. Special classes for academically gifted youth. Roeper Review, 1990, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 244–249. DOI: 10.1080/02783199009553283
  13. Fiedler E.D., Lange R.E., Winebrenner S. In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 2002, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 108–111. DOI: 10.1080/02783190209554142
  14. Gentry M. Commentary on “Does sorting students improve scores? An analysis of class composition.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 2016, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 124–130. DOI: 10.1177/1932202X16636174
  15. Georgiou G.K., Guo K., Naveenkumar N. et al. PASS theory of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Intelligence, 2020, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101431
  16. Gottfried A.E., Gottfried A.W. A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1996, vol. 40, no. 4, p. 179–183. DOI: 10.1177/001698629604000402
  17. Gross M.U.M. Nurturing the talents of exceptionally gifted individuals. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, H.A. Passow (eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford: Pergamon, 1993, pp. 473–490.
  18. Heacox D., Cash R.M. Differentiation for gifted learners: Going beyond the basics. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, 2020. 208 p.
  19. Hendricks K.B. The impact of ability-grouping on the achievement, self-efficacy, and classroom perceptions of gifted elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, US: Walden University, 2009. 124 p. URL: https://www.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/impact-ability-grouping-on-achievement-self/docview/275981068/se- 2?accountid=11248 (Accessed: 04.09.2021)
  20. Hockett J.A. Brighton C.M. General curriculum design: Principles and best practices. In K. Stephens, F. Karnes (eds.), Introduction to Curriculum Design in Gifted Education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, 2016, pp. 41–62.
  21. Housand A.M. Gifted Characteristics and the Implications for Curriculum. In K. Stephens, F. Karnes (eds.), Introduction to Curriculum Design in Gifted Education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, 2016. pp. 1–10.
  22. Jansen H. The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung=Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2010, vol. 11, no. 2. URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1002110 (Accessed: 04.09.2021)
  23. Köksal M.S. A comprehensive research design for experimental studies in science education. Elementary Education Online, 2013, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 628–634.
  24. Kulik C.L.C. Effects of Inter-Class Ability Grouping on Achievement and Self-Esteem. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 23–27, 1985, CA: Los Angeles, 1985.
  25. Kulik J.A., Kulik C.L.C. Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1992, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 73–77. DOI: 10.1177/001698629203600204
  26. Lo C.O., Feng L.C. Teaching higher order thinking skills to gifted students: A meta- analysis. Gifted Education International, 2020, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 196–217. DOI: 10.1177/ 0261429420917854
  27. Miedijensky S. Learning environment for the gifted: What do outstanding teachers of the gifted think? Gifted Education International, 2018, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 222–244. DOI: 10.1177/0261429417754204
  28. Neber H., Schommer-Aikins M. Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 2002, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 59–74. DOI: 10.1080/ 13598130220132316
  29. Neihart M. Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptual framework. In M. Neihart, S.M. Reis, N. Robinson et al (eds.), The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, 2002, pp. 114–119.
  30. Neihart M., Reis S.M., Robinson N. et al. The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, 2002. 328 p.
  31. Oakes J. Tracking in secondary schools: A contextual perspective. Educational Psychologist, 1987, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 129–153. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2202_3
  32. Olszewski-Kubilius P. Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 2009, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 61–70. DOI: 10.1080/02783190903386892
  33. Park S., Oliver J.S. The translation of teachers’ understanding of gifted students into instructional strategies for teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2009, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 333–351. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-009-9138-7
  34. Paz-Baruch N. Educational and learning capital as predictors of general intelligence and scholastic achievements. High Ability Studies, 2020, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 75–91. DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2019.1586656
  35. Pfeiffer S.I., Overstreet M. Park A. The state of science and mathematics education in state-supported residential academies: A nationwide survey, Roeper Review, 2009, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 25–31. DOI: 10.1080/02783190903386579
  36. Plunkett M., Kronborg L.   Gifted   education   in   Australia:   A   story   of   striving for balance. Gifted Education International, 2007, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 72–83. DOI: 10.1177/ 026142940702300109
  37. Renzulli J.S. The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model of creative productivity. In R.J. Sternberg, J.E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 53–92.
  38. Rogers K. Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential, 2002. 504 p.
  39. Sak U., Bal-Sezerel B., Ayas B. et al. Anadolu Sak Zeka Ölçeği (ASIS) uygulayıcı kitabı [Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale user manual]. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniveritesi ÜYEP Merkezi, 2016. 96 p.
  40. Shavinina L.V. Early signs of entrepreneurial giftedness. Gifted and Talented International, 2008, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 9–16. DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2008.11673508
  41. Slavin R.E. Ability grouping, cooperative learning, and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1990, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3–8. DOI: 10.1177/016235329001400102
  42. Slavin R.E. Cooperative learning. NY: Longman, 1983. 147 p.
  43. Slavin R.E. Grouping for instruction in the elementary school. Educational Psychologist, 1987, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 109–127. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2202_2
  44. Sloan P.J. Increasing gifted women’s pursuit of STEM: Possible role of NYC selective specialized public high schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2020, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 167–188. DOI: 10.1177/0162353220912026
  45.  Sternberg R.J. ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 2017, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 152–169. DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2017.1318658
  46. Subotnik R.F., Tai R.H., Rickoff R. et al. Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 Years? Roeper Review, 2009, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 7–16. DOI: 10.1080/ 02783190903386553
  47. Taber K.S. Science education for gifted learners. In K.S. Taber (ed.), Science Education for Gifted Learners. London: Routledge, 2007, pp. 99–144.
  48. Tan S., Maker C.J. Assessing creative problem-solving ability in mathematics: The DISCOVER Mathematics Assessment. Gifted and Talented International, 2020, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 58–71. DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2020.1793702
  49. Tay B., Özkan D., Tay B.A. The effect of academic risk-taking levels on the problem- solving ability of gifted students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2009, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1099–1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.198
  50. Terman L.M., Oden M.H. Genetic studies of genius. Vol. 5: The Gifted Group at Mid- Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1959.
  51. The Bronx High School of Science. The Bronx highschool of science course guide for school year 2019–2020. 2019. URL: https://www.bxscience.edu/pdf/Course%20Catalog.pdf (Accessed: 04.09.2021)
  52. Tomlinson C.A. How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms? Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2001. 333 p.
  53. Tomlinson C.A. Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory into Practice, 2005, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 160–166. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4402_10
  54. van Tassel-Baska J., Stambaugh T. Curriculum and instructional considerations in programs for the gifted. In S.I. Pfeiffer (ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children. Boston, MA.: Springer, 2008, pp. 347–365. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_18
  55. van Tassel-Baska J., Hubbard G. Classroom-based strategies for advanced learners in rural settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 2016, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 285–310. DOI: 10.1177/1932202X16657645
  56. van Tassel-Baska J. Curriculum and instruction for specialized schools for the gifted. In B. McFarlane (ed.), Specialized Schools for High-Ability Learners: Designing and Implementing Programs in Specialized School Settings. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc, 2018.
  57. Vogl K., Preckel F. Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child   Quarterly, 2014,   vol.   58,   no.   1, pp. 51–68. DOI: 10.1177/0016986213513795
  58. Webb N.M. Group composition and group interaction and achievement in small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1982, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 475–484. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.475
  59. Weinburgh M. Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta‐analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 1995, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 387–398. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660320407
  60. Zeidner M., Schleyer E.J. Evaluating the effects of full-time vs part-time educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes and policy considerations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1999, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 413–427. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-7189(99)00027-0
  61. Ziegler A. The Actiotope model of giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg, J.E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 411–436.

Информация об авторах

Юредилли Гëксу Дерья, кандидат психологических наук, Институт педагогических наук, учебных программ и инструкций, Университет Гази, Анкара, Турция, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5218-0010, e-mail: deryagoksu06@gmail.com

Чакар Седа Нур, стажер-исследователь, департамент специального образования, Школа образования, Университет Хаджеттепе, Анкара, Турция, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-4069, e-mail: sakarsedaa@gmail.com

Биджакджи Мехмет, научный сотрудник Департамента образования, исследований и прикладных задач в области одаренности, Университет Хаджеттепе, Анкара, Турция, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6865-9328, e-mail: mehmetbicakci@hacettepe.edu.tr

Кексал Мустафа S., PhD, профессор Школы образования, Университет Хаджеттепе, Анкара, Турция, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2185-5150, e-mail: serdar.koksal@hacettepe.edu.tr

Метрики

Просмотров

Всего: 401
В прошлом месяце: 14
В текущем месяце: 3

Скачиваний

Всего: 156
В прошлом месяце: 12
В текущем месяце: 1