SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2023 / Volume: 11 Issue: 4

Evaluation of training workshop curriculums for gifted and talented students

Fatih Aksoy(ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0102-6969
Bayram Özer(ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4375-4104
Nurgun Gencel(BARTIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-8574-445X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2023-12-30
🏛️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)

The strengths and weaknesses of the implemented curriculum will be revealed, allowing its practitioners to create a more efficient training system.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the critical points that can determine the future of a country is the education of the gifted and specially talented children there.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, a research was carried out with six teachers, a psychologist, an education coordinator and two administrators working as practitioners in the workshop training curriculums for the gifted students implemented in the 1st semester of the 2019-2020 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The strengths and weaknesses of the implemented curriculum will be revealed, allowing its practitioners to create a more efficient training system.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2019-2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Gifted and talented student · Worksho education · CIPP

Abstract

One of the critical points that can determine the future of a country is the education of the gifted and specially talented children there. Many civilizations from past to present have attached importance to this education. The aim of this study is to evaluate the educational workshop curriculums applied for gifted children according to the Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model. For this purpose, a research was carried out with six teachers, a psychologist, an education coordinator and two administrators working as practitioners in the workshop training curriculums for the gifted students implemented in the 1st semester of the 2019-2020 academic year. In the study, semi-structured interviews according to CIPP steps were collected by interviewing the participants one-to-one for 8 weeks within a 16-week training curriculum. According to the findings obtained; The quality of education given to gifted children should be increased. In addition, it was seen that it was necessary to systematically examine the opinions expressed by the curriculum practitioners and to make the necessary changes to the curriculum in a planned manner. In the light of these findings, about workshop training curriculums; increasing the adequacy of the physical environment, disseminating studies on creative thinking skills, opening different trainings for all areas of development and ensuring that children can participate in the areas they want have been achieved. The strengths and weaknesses of the implemented curriculum will be revealed, allowing its practitioners to create a more efficient training system.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aksoy, F., Özer, B., Gencel, N. (2023). Evaluation of training workshop curriculums for gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Volume: 11 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1380004

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. Akarsu, F. (2004). Enderun: Üstün Yetenekliler İçin Saray Okulu. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı (s. 97-101). içinde İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları.
  2. Akbüber, B. A., Erdik, E., Güney, H., Çimşitoğlu, G. G., & Akbüber, C. (2019). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Sorunlarının Değerlendirilmesinde Bir Yöntem Önerisi “Özel Yetenekli Öğrenci Çalıştayı”. Üstün Zekâlılar Eğitimi ve Yaratıcılık Dergisi, 6(1), 22-39.
  3. Arap, B. (2016). An investigation into ghe implementation of English preparatory programs at tertiary level in Turkey [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cukurova University
  4. Bayraktar Keleş, A. (2020). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin davranış problemlerinin ve öğretmenlerin bu davranışlarla baş etme yöntemlerinin belirlenmesi. [Unpublished master thesis]. Ankara University
  5. Callahan, C. M. (1986). The central issue in evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 38-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628603000108
  6. Christo, J. (2019). Evaluation of the EXCEL and IMPACT! Programs for Gifted Students. [Doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis/USA: Walden University ].
  7. Cropley, A. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A practice-oriented introduction for students of psychology and education. Riga, Latvia: (Open access - doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3095.6888).
  8. Çalıkoğlu, B. S. (2017). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitiminde ürün geliştirme (Product development in the education of students with special abilities). Özel yeteneklilerin eğitiminde program tasarımı (s. 203-228). içinde Ankara: PEGEM Academy.
  9. Çelikdelen, H. (2010). Bilim Sanat Merkezlerinde Bilim Birimlerinden Destek Alan Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Kendi Okullarında Fen ve Teknoloji Dersinde Karşılaştıkları Güçlüklerin Değerlendirilmesi. Konya: Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  10. Çubukçu, Z., & Gültekin, M. (2006). Social skills that should be acquired by students in primary education. Bilig, 34, 155-174. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bilig/issue/25369/267789
  11. Darma, I. K. (2019). The effectiveness of teaching program of CIPP evaluation model. International Research Journal of Engineering, IT & Scientific Research, 5(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjeis.v5n3.619
  12. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
  13. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Rebecca, L.-K. (2015). Engaging Minds: Cultures of Education and Practices of Teaching. New York: Routledge.
  14. De Grauwe, A., & Naidoo, J. P. (2004). School evaluation for quality improvement. Meeting of the Asian network of training and research institutions in educational planning (ANTRIEP)(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 2-4, 2002). International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO. 7-9 rue Eugene-Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France.
  15. Dinçer, B. (2013). Evaluation of 7.th grade English language curriculum according to Stufflebeam's CIPP model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Adnan Menderes University
  16. Eker, A. (2020). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin öğretmenlerinin mesleki yeterliklerini artırmaya yönelik geliştirilen öğretmen eğitimi programının etkililiği. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Selcuk University
  17. Ford, D. Y. & Thomas, A. (1997). Underachievement among Gifted Minority Students: Problems and Promises. ERIC Digest E544, 2(13) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED409660.pdf
  18. Freeman, J. (2002). Out-of-school Educational Provision for the Gifted and Talented Around the World. London: Department of Education and Skills U.K. Government.
  19. Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19(3), 132-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553808
  20. Girgin, D. (2020). Competencies required for supporting gifted students: Classroom teacher’ views. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 19(74), 895-915.
  21. Gökalp, M. (2017). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri. Ankara: PEGEM Akademi.
  22. Grigorenko, E. L. (2017). Gifted education in Russia: Developing, threshold, or developed. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1364898. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1364898
  23. Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2014). Gifted Contributions to the impact of the Javits Act by The National Research Center on the and Talented. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 422-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14549355
  24. Gültekin, M. (2017). Program Geliştirme ile İlgili Temel Kavramlar (Basic Concepts of Program Development). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme ve Değerlendirme (s. 2-37). içinde Ankara: PEGEM Akademi.
  25. Gyarmathy, E. (2013, Mart 1). The Gifted and Gifted Education in Hungary. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 19-43.
  26. Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542
  27. Heiss, R. H. (1995). Personality and interests of gifted adolescents: differences by gender and domain. Iowa State University, Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Iowa: Digital Repository.
  28. Hennessey, B. A. (2004). Developing creativity in gifted children: The central importance of motivation and classroom climate. Massachusetts: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505478.pdf
  29. Heuser, B. L., Wang, K. ve Shahid, S. (2017). Global Dimensions of Gifted and Talented Education: The Influence of National Perceptions on Policies and Practices. Global Education Review, 4(1), 4-21.
  30. Hoower-Schultz, B. (2005). Gifted underachievement: Oxymoron or educational enigma? Gifteed Child Today, 28(2), 46-49. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2005-171
  31. Hunsaker, S. ve Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 190-200.
  32. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Taylor, B. (1993). Impact of cooperative and individualistic learning on high-ability students' achievement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(6), 839-844.
  33. Jolly, J. L. (2018). A history of American gifted education. New York: Routledge.
  34. Kara, A. ve Akdağ, M. (2017). Program Değerlendirme Modelleri-I. Eğitimde Program Geliştirme ve Değerlendirme (p. 469-508). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  35. Kennedy, D. M. (2002). Glimpses of a highly gifted child in a heterogeneous classroom. Roeper Review, 24(3), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554148
  36. Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
  37. Klein, A. G. (2002). A Forgotten Voice: A Biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Scotssdale AZ: Great Potential Press.
  38. Lo, C. O., Porath, M., Yu, H.-P., Chen, C.-M., Tsai, K.-F. ve We, I.-C. (2019). Giftedness in the making: A transactional. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218812474
  39. Melekoğlu, M. A., Çakıroğlu, O., & Malmgren, K. W. (2009). Special education in Turkey. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701747769
  40. MEB. (1991). 1. Special Education Council (Reports, Interviews, Decisions). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  41. MEB. (2019). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı: http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/
  42. Orbay, M., Gokdere, M., Tereci, H., & Aydin, M. (2010). Attitudes of gifted students towards science depending on some variables: A Turkish sample. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(7), 693-699. http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE
  43. Pivec, M., Dziabenko, O., & Schinnerl, I. (2003). Aspects of game-based learning. 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Management, 216-225.
  44. Pomortseva, N. P. (2014). Teaching gifted children in regular classroom in the USA. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (143), 147-151.
  45. Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal Araştırmalara Giriş (Introduction to Social Research). (S. E. Türközü, Dü.) Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  46. Putranta, H., & Jumadi, J. (2019). Physics Teacher Efforts of Islamic High School in Yogyakarta to Minimize Students’ Anxiety When Facing the Assessment of Physics Learning Outcomes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.552091
  47. Reid, E., & Boettger, H. (2015). Gifted education in various countries of Europe. Slavonic pedagogical studies journal, 4, 158-171.
  48. Renzulli, J. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902300102
  49. Révész, G., & Szabó, J. (2018). Eternal Questions of Gifted Education from the Aspect of University Teachers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(1), 43–67. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.2018.72
  50. Rotigel, J. V. & Fello, S. (2004). Mathematically gifted students: How can we meet their needs? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2004-150
  51. Shack, G. D. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator in the creative productivity of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(1), 231-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328901200306
  52. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315
  53. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1982). A Review of Progress in Educational Evaluation. Evaluation News, 3(2), 15-27. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED216031
  54. Şahin, F. (2013). Issues of Identification of Giftedness in Turkey. Gifted and Talented International, 1-2(28), 207-218.
  55. Şensoy, S. A. & Sağsöz, A. (2015). Relation between pupils academic achievement and pyhsical conditions of classrooms. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Faculty of Education (KEFAD), 16(3), 87-114. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1489212
  56. Tiantong, M., &Tongchin, P. (2013). A Multiple Intelligences Supported Web-based Collaborative Learning Model Using Stufflebeam’s CIPP Evaluation Model. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(7), 157-165. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=53b57f1754e33708a5a7714cca7de13cf42f9e62
  57. Terman, M. L. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  58. Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland Serves Gifted and Talented Pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84-96.
  59. Weyns, T., Preckel, F. ve Verschueren, K. (2020). Teachers-in-training perceptions of gifted children’s characteristicsand teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103215
  60. Winebrenner, S. & Brulles, D. (2008). What do gifted students need? http://www.mainegateways.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11 /%E2%80%9CSusan-Winebrenner-What-d.fted-students-need-.pdf%E2%80%9D.pdf
  61. Vainer, E. S., Gali, G. F., & Shakhnina, I. Z. (2016). Historic overview of gifted education in foreign countries. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 588-594. http://www. ijhcs.com/index. php/ijhcs/index.
  62. Cropley, A. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A practice-oriented introduction for students of psychology and education. Riga, Latvia: (Open access - doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3095.6888).
  63. Winebrenner, S. & Brulles, D. (2008). What do gifted students need? http://www.mainegateways.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11 /%E2%80%9CSusan-Winebrenner-What-d.fted-students-need-.pdf%E2%80%9D.pdf