Toward A New Era of Gifted Education: Principles, Policies, and Strategies
Keywords:
üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimi, yetenek gelişimi, paradigma değişimi, eşitlik ve mükemmellik, sosyal ağlar ve hiyerarşiler, gifted education and talent development, paradigm shift, equity and excellence, networks and hierarchiesAbstract
Abstract
Gifted education as we know and practice is by and large the product of early 20th century. In this paper, I am arguing for a paradigm shift in gifted education to make it more responsive to the challenges of the 21st century, as well as new opportunities for optimal development of many children and adolescents, ra- ther than exclusively focusing on the identified and selected few (often in a once-and-for-all fashion). This argument is based on the preponderance of evidence that human potential is widely distributed in a popu- lation, and highly pluralistic and dynamic, not ame- nable to a uniform formula that fits everyone into a Procrustean Bed of giftedness with the assumption of its homogeneity and permanence (Dai, 2016a). I elab- orate on what it takes to make such a shift in terms of four W questions: What, Why, Who, and How. I argue that by envisioning a broader agenda of gifted educa- tion, gifted education can be made more equitable and productive. At the social and organizational level, with appropriate centralized control, more locally in- itiated education and development efforts can be har- nessed to build a distributed network system of sup- port that is more responsive to needs for advanced learning, talent development, and excellence in the 21st century.
Öz
Üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimi bilindiği ve uygulandığı üzere 20. yüzyılın başlarında ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu ma- kalede 21. yüzyılın zorluklarına daha duyarlı bir üs- tün yetenekliler eğitimi için paradigma değişiminin gerekliliği tartışılmıştır. Paradigma değişiminin yanı sıra yalnızca seçilen ve üstün yetenek tanısı alanlaraodaklanılması yerine pek çok çocuk ve ergenin en uy- gun gelişimi için yeni fırsatlar sunulması gerekliliği irdelenmiştir. Makaledeki argümanlar, üstün yetene- ğin homojenliği ve kalıcılığı varsayımıyla herkesi bir üstün yetenek kalıbına sokan ve tek tip bir formüle dayanan değil, üstün yetenek potansiyelinin çoğulcu, dinamik ve çeşitli popülasyonlarda geniş dağılım gös- terdiğini ortaya koyan kanıtlara dayanmaktadır (Dai, 2016a). Böyle bir paradigma değişikliği için neyin ge- rekli olduğu dört N sorusu bağlamında incelenebilir: Ne, Niçin, Kim ve Nasıl. Üstün yeteneklilerin eğiti- mine daha geniş bir görüş açısı ile bakılırsa, üstün ye-tenekliler eğitimi daha eşitlikçi ve üretken yapılabilir. Sosyal ve örgütsel düzeyde, uygun bir merkezi kont- rol sistemi ile 21. yüzyılın daha ileri düzeyde öğrenme, yetenek geliştirme ve mükemmellik ihtiyaçlarına duyarlı sosyal ağ destek sistemlerinin inşa edil- mesine yardımcı olabilecek daha çok yerel düzeyde eğitim çalışmaları bir araya getirilebilir.
References
Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-124). New York: Teachers College Press.
Callahan, C. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148-163.
Callahan, C. M., & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38-51). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Csermely, P. (2015, October). Cutting-edge research on talent development in Europe. Presentation at the Nuremberg Conference on Talent Development, Nuremberg, Germany.
Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted educa- tion. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dai, D. Y. (2016a). Envisioning a new century of gifted education: The case for a paradigm shift. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 45-63). New York: SensePublishers.
Dai, D. Y. (2016b). Looking back to the future: Toward a new era of gifted education. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 295-319). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151-168.
Dai, D. Y., & Kuo, C. C. (Eds.). (2016). Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Yang, Y. (2016). Gifted education in Mainland China: How it serves a national interest, and where it falls short. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 51-75). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub- lishing.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9-33). New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity.
Henry, T. S. (1920). Nineteenth Yearbook, Part II: Classroom problems in the education of gifted children. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.
Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32-40.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precious youth after 35 years. Per- spectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.
Matthews, D. & Dai, D. Y. (2014). Gifted education: Changing conceptions, emphases, and prac- tice. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24, 335-353.
Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64-69.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61-70.
Passow, A. H. (1981). The nature of giftedness and talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 5-10.
Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M. C. Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Should millions of students take a gap year? Large numbers of students start a school year above grade level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 229-238.
Peters, S. J., Matthews, M. S., McBee, M.T., & McCoach, D. B. (2013). Beyond gifted education: De- signing and implementing advanced academic programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Reis, S. M. (2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high achieving students, gifted undera- chievers, and the relationship between gifted and regular education. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 186-200). New York: Teachers College Press.
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modi- fying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learn- ing Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quar- terly, 51, 382-396.
Sak, U., Ayas, B., Bal-Sezerel, B., Öpengin, E., Özdemir, N. N., & Demirel-Gürbüz, S. (2016). A critical assessment of the education for gifted and talented students in Turkey. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 167-190). Char- lotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359-375.
Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 152- 169.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Mac- millan.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1, Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instruc- tional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 155-174.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated instruction. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Criti- cal issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 197-1210). Austin, TX: Prufrock Press.
Treffinger, D. S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 19, 181-193.
Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2016). Gifted education in modern Asia: Analyses from a systemic per- spective. In D. Y. Dai & C-C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 273-291). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Witty, P. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? . In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Education of the gifted. 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (pp. 41-63). Chicago: University of Chicago.
