What Characteristics of a Student Mo- tivate Turkish Pre-service Elementary School Teachers to Include or Not In- clude Students in Gifted Education Programs?
Keywords:
Sınıf öğretmeni adayları, üstün zekâlı öğrenciler, üstün zekâlı öğrenci özellikleriAbstract
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate Turkish pre-service elementary school teachers’ reasons for including or not including a student to gifted educa- tion programs through eleven profiles (hypotethical scenarios) originally created by five American ex- perts in the field of gifted education. The original profiles were translated and adapted to be more relevant to Turkish culture. These profiles were named “Student Profiles Survey” in this study. The profiles were varied based on characteristics embed- ded in each profile and I was able to create eight versions (piles) of the Student Profiles Survey. The data of this study was derived from a bigger study. Only qualitative part of the bigger data set was re- ported in this study. Participants of the study were 16 Turkish pre-service elementary school teachers who were attending two colleges of Education at a university located in Southeast of Turkey. After filling the survey, Turkish pre-service teachers were interviewed to explain their reasons to include/ not include the students in the survey to gifted education programs. Turkish pre-service elementary school teachers explained their reasons for including the students in the profiles to gifted education programs mostly based on the personal, academic, and social characteristics of the students embedded in the pro- files but they did not often referred students’ charac- teristics when they were explaining their reasons for exclusion. Rather than explaining their reasons based on characteristics of the students, Turkish pre-service teachers increased their expectations and created excuses to underestimate the potentials of the stu- dents in the profiles when they were asked to explain their reasons for exclusion.
Key Words: Turkish pre-service teachers, gifted, gifted characteristics
Öz
Bu çalışmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğrencileri üstün zekâlılar programına dâhil edip etmeme nedenlerini belirlemektir. Çalışmada kulla- nılan veri toplama aracı, üstün zekâlılar alanında uzman beş Amerikalı tarafından hazırlanmış olan ve hayali üstün zekâlı öğrencileri tanıtan bir ankettir. “Öğrenci Profilleri Anketi” olarak adlandırılan an- ketteki on bir hayali öğrenciyi tanıtan senaryolar araştırmacı tarafından İngilizceden Türkçeye çevrilip uyarlanmıştır. Öğrencilerin farklı özellikleri dikkate alınarak kurgulanan, hazırlanan hayali senaryolar, sekiz farklı Öğrenci Profilleri Anketi’nin oluşmasını sağlamıştır. Bu çalışmada kullanılan veriler ise daha kapsamlı bir çalışmadan elde edilen verilerin sadece nitel kısmını oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın katılımcı- ları Türkiye’nin güneydoğusunda yer alan büyük bir üniversitenin sınıf öğretmenliği programına devam eden 3 ve 4. Sınıf öğrencileridir. Anketi dolduran öğretmen adayları ile görüşmeler yapılmış ve anket- te yer alan hayali öğrencileri üstün zekâlılar progra- mına dâhil edip etmeme nedenleri sorulmuştur. Sınıf öğretmeni adayları, senaryolarda yer alan öğrencileri üstün zekâlılar programlarına dâhil etme sebeplerini açıklarken genelde öğrencilerin kişisel, akademik ve sosyal özelliklerine vurgu yaparken dâhil etmeme sebeplerini açıklarken bu özellikleri göz ardı ettikleri gözlemlenmiştir. Öğretmen adayları dâhil etmeme nedenlerini açıklarken öğrenci özelliklerine vurgu yapmak yerine bahaneler üretmiş, öğrenciden yana beklentilerini yükseltmiş ve bu öğrencilerin var olan potansiyellerini hafife alarak bu öğrencileri üstün zekalılar programına dâhil etmeyeceklerini beyan etmiştirler.
References
Akar, İ. & Akar, Ş. Ş. (2012).İlköğretimokullarında görev yapmakta olan öğretmen lerin üstün yetenek kavramı hakkındaki görüşleri [Primary school in-service teachers’ percep tions of giftedness]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 20, 423-436.
Alvidrez, J. & Weinstein, S. R. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 731-746.
Bégin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of general attitude toward gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 74-86.
Bianco, M., & Leech, N. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 319-334.
Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., & Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: gender bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review, 33, 170-181.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Meas- urement, 20, 37-46.
Creswell, W. J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.
Çapan, E. B. (2010). Öğretmenadaylarınınüstünyetenekliöğrencilereilişkinmetaforikalgıları [Teacher candidates’ metaphoric perceptions of gifted students]. The Journal of International Social Research, 3, 140-154.
Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Demirhan, E., Uyanik, K. G., Güngören, C. Ö., & Erdoğan, G. D. (2016). An examination of pre- service classroom teaching programs in terms of gifted education in Turkey. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4, 15-28.
Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005). Effect of children's ethnicity on teachers' referral and recommendations decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 25-31. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010401
Endepohls- Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16, 219-228.
Erdimez, O. (2017). Turkish pre-service elementary school teachers’ perceptions of giftedness and factors affecting their referrall decisions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona University, Tucson, Arizona.
Glaser, G. B. & Strauss, L. A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative re- search. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gökdere, M., & Ayvaci, Ş. H. (2004). Sınıföğretmenlerininüstünyetenekliçocuklarveözellikle- riileilgilibilgiseviyelerininbelirlenmesi [Determination of primary school teachers’ knowledge level about giftedness concept]. OndokuzMayısÜniversitesiEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 18, 17-26.
Grantham, T. C. (2002). Underrepresentation in gifted education: How did we get here and what needs to change? Roeper Review, 24, 50–51. doi:10.1080/02783190209554128
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. (2009). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it, then they don’t. Rooper Review, 17, 11-15.
Inan, Z. H., Bayindir, N., & Demir, S. (2009). Awareness level of teachers about the characteristics of gifted children. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 3, 2519-2527.
McBee, T. M. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103-111.
McBee, T. M. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 283-297.
Michener, L. A. (1980). A survey of the attitudes of administrators, teachers and community members toward the education of gifted children and youth (Educational doctorate dissertation). Re- trieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 8109558).
Miller, E.M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers' theory- based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gift- ed, 33, 65-105.
Morris, S.K. (1987). Student teachers' attitudes toward gifted students .Creative Child and Adult
Quarterly, 12, 112-114.
Özsoy, Y. (2014). Bilim sanat merkezi öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerinin üstün yetenekli öğrenci kavramına ilişkin metaforları [Science and art center students’, teachers’, and parents’ metaphors regarding gifted students]. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 2, 74-87.
Persson, R. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understandings of high ability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9, 181-196.
Peterson, J., & Margolin, L. (1997). Naming gifted children: An example of unintended “repro- duction”.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 82–100.
Powell, T., & Siegle, D. (2000). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students. The Na- tional Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Spring, 13-15.
Sak, U. (2011, April). Prevelance of misconceptions, dogmas, and popular views about giftedness and intelligence: a case from Turkey. High Ability Studies, 22, 179-197.
Siegle, D. (2001). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students. Paper presented at the An- nual Meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, 80th, Kansas City, MO.
