SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1

Views of Academic Achievement of Gifted Students in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups

Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Homojen ve Heterojen Gruplardaki Akademik Başarıya İlişkin Görüşleri

Şule Demirel Dingeç(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6709-7690
Ahmet Yiğit Palas(KÜTAHYA SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GEDİZ SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-3016-7528
Pages
307–328
Publication Date
2026-04-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings are the role of effort in academic achievement, the effects of the uncertain ceiling, the realism of the homogeneous frame of reference, and the difference between feeling good and feeling successful.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There is a widespread expectation of high academic achievement in the literature on the identification of gifted individuals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The educational environment in which the individual lives and the qualities of other individuals around them can significantly influence the individual's self-perception.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings are the role of effort in academic achievement, the effects of the uncertain ceiling, the realism of the homogeneous frame of reference, and the difference between feeling good and feeling successful.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Akademik başarı · özel yetenekli öğrenci · heterojen grup

Abstract

There is a widespread expectation of high academic achievement in the literature on the identification of gifted individuals. The fact that they develop cognitively at a more advanced level than their peers leads to this expectation as a natural consequence. However, society's expectations of these individuals and the individual's self-perception and subjective assessment of academic achievement may differ. The educational environment in which the individual lives and the qualities of other individuals around them can significantly influence the individual's self-perception. The aim of this study was to investigate the subjective perceptions of gifted individuals in relation to academic achievement. To this end, the study was conducted with a group of participants consisting of gifted individuals studying in both homogeneous and heterogeneous educational environments. A total of 8 secondary school students, 4 girls and 4 boys, participated in the study. The research design was determined within the interpretive phenomenology method, one of the phenomenological approaches, in accordance with the purpose of the study. Four main findings emerged from the interviews with the participants. These findings are the role of effort in academic achievement, the effects of the uncertain ceiling, the realism of the homogeneous frame of reference, and the difference between feeling good and feeling successful.

Özet

Özel yetenekli bireylerin tanımlanmasına yönelik alanyazında, bu bireylerin akademik anlamda yüksek başarı göstermelerine dair yaygın bir beklenti bulunmaktadır. Bilişsel açıdan akranlarına kıyasla daha ileri düzeyde gelişim göstermeleri, söz konusu beklentinin doğal bir sonuç olarak ortaya çıkmasına neden olmaktadır. Ancak, toplumun bu bireylere yönelik beklentileri ile bireyin kendisini algılayış biçimi ve akademik başarıya dair öznel değerlendirmesi farklılık gösterebilmektedir. Bireyin içinde bulunduğu eğitim ortamı ve çevresindeki diğer bireylerin nitelikleri, kişinin kendisine yönelik algısını önemli ölçüde etkileyebilmektedir. Bu çalışma, özel yetenekli bireylerin akademik başarıya ilişkin algılarını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda hem homojen hem de heterojen eğitim ortamlarında öğrenim gören özel yetenekli bireylerden oluşan bir katılımcı grubu ile araştırma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya, 4’ü kız ve 4’ü erkek olmak üzere toplam 8 ortaokul öğrencisi katılım sağlamıştır. Araştırma deseni, çalışmanın amacına uygun olarak fenomenoloji yaklaşımlarından yorumlayıcı fenomenoloji yöntemi çerçevesinde belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılarla gerçekleştirilen görüşmeler sonucunda dört temel bulgu elde edilmiştir. Bulgularda çabanın akademik başarıdaki rolü, belirsiz üst sınırın etkileri, homojen referans çerçevesinin gerçekçiliği ve iyi hissetmek ile başarılı hissetmek arasındaki fark olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dingeç, Ş. D., Palas, A. Y. (2026). Views of Academic Achievement of Gifted Students in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 307–328. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1701356

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (77)

  1. Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S. and Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800102
  2. Allende González, C. and Valenzuela, J. P. (2024). Does selective secondary schools make a difference? a quasi-experimental study in chilean public schools. International Journal of Educational Reform, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879241244764
  3. Alyahyan, E. and Düştegör, D. (2020). Predicting academic success in higher education: Literature review and best practices. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0177-7
  4. Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Limited learning on college campuses. Society, 48(3), 203-207. DOI: 10.1007/s12115-011-9417-8
  5. Ataman, A. (2012). Üstün zekâlılar ve üstün yetenekliler. Geleceğin Mimarları – Üstün Yetenekliler Sempozyumu, Namık Kemal Üniversitesi, Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu.
  6. Baltacı, R. (2013). Üstün zekâyı yeteneğe dönüştürmek: Gelişimsel bir teori olarak Ayrımsal Üstün Zekâ ve Yetenek Modeli. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000174
  7. Batterjee, A. A. (2016). The effect of grouping and program type on scholastic and affective outcomes in the Mawhiba schools partnership initiative. Gifted Education International, 32(2), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429414557588
  8. Bissell, K. (2023). The impact of ability grouping on academic achievement in elementary reading [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. Scholar Commons. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/7590
  9. Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (7th Ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
  10. Chessor, D. and Whitton, D. (2005). The impact of grouping gifted primary school students on self-concept, motivation and achievement from parents' perspectives. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 15(1), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.15.1.93
  11. Clark D. (2010). Selective schools and academic achievement. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 10(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1917
  12. Corno, L. (1993). The Best-Laid Plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022002014
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Montijo, M. N. and Mouton, A. R. (2018). Flow theory: Optimizing elite performance in the creative realm. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, and M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 215–229). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-014
  14. Costa, A., Moreira, D., Casanova, J., Azevedo, Â., Gonçalves, A., Oliveira, Í., Azevedo, R. and Dias, P. C. (2024). Determinants of academic achievement from the middle to secondary school education: A systematic review. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 3533–3572. DOI:10.1007/s11218-024-09941-z
  15. Çalışkan, K. ve Tan, S. (2024). The effects of homogeneous grouping on gifted students: A systematic literature review. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 25(2), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1117630
  16. Dam, H. (2008). Öğrencinin okul başarısında aile faktörü. Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(14), 75-99. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hititilahiyat/issue/7691/100764
  17. Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P. and Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001
  18. DeFreitas, S. C. (2012). Differences between African American and European American first-year college students in the relationship between self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and academic achievement. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 15(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9172-0
  19. 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(4), 359-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306320
  20. Demir, S. (2024). Üstün yetenekli yetişkinlerde başarı algısı: Nitel bir çalışma (Yayın No. 897483) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  21. Demirel-Dingeç, Ş. (2021). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerde benlik algısı ve benlik algılarını etkileyen faktörler. H. Şahin and C. Ünvan (Ed.), Güncel eğitim bilimleri araştırmaları içinde (1. Baskı, ss.21-36). Lvre de Lyon.
  22. Demirel-Dingeç, Ş. (2023). Özel eğitim bölümü öğretmen adaylarının seçkin gruplardaki özel yetenekli öğrencilerin akademik benlik algısını desteklemeye ilişkin görüşleri. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(4), 783-798. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1343818
  23. Demirel-Dingeç, Ş. ve Sak, U. (2023). Türkiye’deki liselerde büyük balık küçük gölet etkisi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 13(3), 1602–1621. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1172710
  24. Dimitriadis, C. (2012). Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: An investigation of four different methods of organisational provision. Educational Review, 64(2), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598920
  25. Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D. and Tsukayama, E. (2012). What no child left behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ and self-control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026280
  26. Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promise of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34–39.
  27. Feldhusen, J. F. and Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600202
  28. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
  29. Fiore, G. F. (2014). The academic and social effects of heterogeneous grouping upon gifted and talented seventh and eighth grade students [Doctoral dissertation, Immaculata University]. Immaculata University Library. https://www.immaculata.edu/academics/library/
  30. Fletcher, K. L. and Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21623 Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
  31. Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. In C. L. Frisby and C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology. Wiley Press.
  32. Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025510
  33. Gökaydın, B. (2017). Üstün zekâlı bireylerin yaşadıkları sosyal ve duygusal sorunlara yönelik psikolog görüşlerinin belirlenmesi (Yayın No. 6589871473) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi] https://docs.neu.edu.tr/library/
  34. Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001698620304700204
  35. Hertberg-Davis, H. L. and Callahan, C. M. (2013). Contexts for instruction: An introduction to service delivery options and programming models in gifted education. In C. M. Callahan, and H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 161-163). Routledge.
  36. Jencks, C., Bartlett, S., Corcoran, M., Crouse, J., Eaglesfield, D., Jackson, G., McClelland, K., Mueser, P., Olneck, M., Schwartz, J., Ward, S. and Williams, J. (1979). Who gets ahead? The determinants of economic success in America. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577997
  37. Jones, B. D., Krost, K. and Jones, M. W. (2021). Relationships between students’ course perceptions, effort, and achievement in an online course. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100051
  38. Kasatura, İ. (1991). Okul başarısından hayat başarısına. İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar.
  39. Keskin, H. K. ve Yapıcı, Ş. (2008). Başarılı ve başarısız öğrencilerin kişilik özellikleri ile ilgili öğretmen ve veli görüşleri. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 1 (1), 20-32.
  40. Kurtuldu, M. K. (2010). Piyano öğrencilerinin başarı algısının sınıf, başarı düzeyi ve mezuniyet değişkenine yönelik karşılaştırılması. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 5(3), 164-171.
  41. London, A. E. (2020). The difference between homogeneous grouping and heterogeneous grouping in gifted students’ reading achievement [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/2437.
  42. Lozano-Blasco, R., Quílez-Robres, A., Usán, P., Salavera, C. and Casanovas-López, R. (2022). Types of intelligence and academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040123
  43. Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., Marsh, H. W. and Trautwein, U. (2005). Teacher frame of reference and the big-fish–little-pond effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 263–285. Retrieved November 13, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.002
  44. Marsh, H. W. and Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213-231. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.213.
  45. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage.
  46. Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A. and McBee, M. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2013.846251
  47. Maxwel, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.). Sage.
  48. Miu, E., Gulley, N., Laland, K. N. and Rendell, L. (2020). Flexible learning, rather than inveterate innovation or copying, drives cumulative knowledge gain. Science Advances, 6(23). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0286
  49. Mecek, S. (2017). Üstün yetenekli 7 ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etki eden faktörler (Yayın No. 470566) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  50. Melser, N. A. (1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping strategies. Roeper Review, 21(4), 315–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553983
  51. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. (Çev. S. Turan). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  52. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis a methods sourcebook (3nd ed.). California, Sage Publications, Inc.
  53. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2018). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_07/09101900_ozel_egitim_hizmetleri_yonetmeligi_07072018.pdf adresinden 14.10.2024 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  54. Ogurlu, U. and Özbey, A. (2021). Personality differences in gifted versus non-gifted individuals: A three-level meta-analysis. High Ability Studies, 33(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2021.1985438
  55. Neber, H., Finsterwald, M. and Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130120084339
  56. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. and Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
  57. Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., Stumpf, E., Motschenbacher, M., Vogl, K. and Schneider, W. (2017). A test of the reciprocal-effects model of academic achievement and academic self-concept in regular classes and special classes for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986216687824
  58. Reis, S. M. and McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
  59. Richert, E. S. (1991). Patterns of underachievement among gifted students. In M. Bireley and J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 139–162). Teachers College Press.
  60. Rinn, A. N. (2007). Effects of Programmatic selectivity on the academic achievement, academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 232-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302718
  61. Rodic, M., Zhou, X., Tikhomirova, T., Wei, W., Malykh, S., Ismatulina, V., Sabirova, E., Davidova, Y., Tosto, M. G., Lemelin, J. P. and Kovas, Y. (2015). Cross-cultural investigation into cognitive underpinnings of individual differences in early arithmetic. Developmental Science, 18(1), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12204
  62. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 24(3), 103-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554140
  63. Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F. and Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002
  64. Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekalılar özellikleri, tanılanmaları ve eğitimleri. Vize Akademik.
  65. Sarıer, Y. (2016). Türkiye'de öğrencilerin akademik başarısını etkileyen faktörler: Bir meta-analiz çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(3), 609-627. DOI: 10.16986/HUJE.2016015868
  66. Sart, G. (2015). Fenomenoloji ve yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik analiz. In F. N. Seggie and Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Nitel araştırma: Yöntem, teknik, analiz ve yaklaşımları (pp. 70–81). Anı Yayıncılık.
  67. Seeley, K. (2004). Gifted and talented students at risk. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v37i4.6870
  68. Shields, C. M. (2002). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms, Roeper Review, 24(3), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554146
  69. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  70. Šimelionienė, A. (2012). Factors affecting the achievements of intellectually gifted children [Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius University]. https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:1854219/index.html.
  71. Steinmayr, R., Meißner, A., Weidinger, A. F. and Wirthwein, L. (2014). Academic achievement. In Education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0108
  72. Stricker, J., Buecker, S., Schneider, M. and Preckel, F. (2020). Intellectual giftedness and multidimensional perfectionism: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 391-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09504-1
  73. Tamul, Ö. F. (2023). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerde beklenenden düşük başarı görülmesinin nedenleri: Durum çalışması (Yayın No. 842517) [Doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  74. Türk Dil Kurumu. (2024). Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden 14.10.2024 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  75. Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitim bilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel biraraştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(24), 543-559. https://izlik.org/JA49HH95LM
  76. Yazıcıoğlu Çalışan, H., ve Pekel, A. Ö. (2024). Olimpiyat Oyunlarına katılan profesyonel sporcuların olimpiyat kavramına yönelik metaforik algıları. Journal of Sport for All and Recreation, 6(4), 474–478. https://doi.org/10.56639/jsar.1553403
  77. Yörükoğlu, A. (1986). Gençlik çağı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.