SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1

Examining Mathematics Instructional Practices for Gifted Students Through Student Opinions

Üstün Yetenekli Öğrenciler için Matematik Öğretim Uygulamalarının Öğrenci Görüşlerine Dayalı Olarak İncelenmesi

Derya Zengin(Bursa Halil İnalcık Science and Art Center)0000-0001-9854-9664
Menekşe Seden Tapan Broutin(ULUDAG UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1860-852X
Pages
34–69
Publication Date
2026-06-26
🏛️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 findings indicate that students prefer learning environments that encourage critical thinking, incorporate real-life contexts, utilize technological and visual tools, promote collaboration, and enable active participation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to explore the opinions of gifted students regarding the mathematics instructional practices implemented at SaAC.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Conducted using a qualitative research design, the study involved 50 ninth-grade students enrolled at Halil İnalcık Science and Art Center in Nilüfer, Bursa, during the 2022–2023 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that students prefer learning environments that encourage critical thinking, incorporate real-life contexts, utilize technological and visual tools, promote collaboration, and enable active participation.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022–2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler · matematik öğretim uygulamaları · öğrenci görüşleri

Abstract

This study aims to explore the opinions of gifted students regarding the mathematics instructional practices implemented at SaAC. Conducted using a qualitative research design, the study involved 50 ninth-grade students enrolled at Halil İnalcık Science and Art Center in Nilüfer, Bursa, during the 2022–2023 academic year. Participants were selected through criterion sampling, a type of purposive sampling. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analyzed through content analysis. The findings are organized under six main categories: general instructional activities, subject-specific activities (Algebra, measurement and data), geometry activities, use of materials, mathematical proof and reasoning processes, and opinions on assessment methods. The findings indicate that students prefer learning environments that encourage critical thinking, incorporate real-life contexts, utilize technological and visual tools, promote collaboration, and enable active participation. Conversely, teacher-centred, rote-based, and passive instruction were perceived as inadequate. In geometry and proof-related topics, students expressed positive opinions towards the integration of dynamic software tools. At the same time, project and performance-based assessments were deemed more effective for evaluating learning outcomes. Overall, the findings highlight the need for differentiated, student-centred, and flexible instructional designs that cater to the unique learning needs of gifted individuals.

Özet

Bu çalışma, BİLSEM matematik öğretim uygulamaları kapsamında yürütülen süreçlere ilişkin üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin görüşlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma deseniyle yürütülen çalışma, 2022-2023 eğitim-öğretim yılında Bursa Nilüfer Halil İnalcık Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi’ne kayıtlı 50 dokuzuncu sınıf öğrencisi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılar, amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden biri olan ölçüt örnekleme yoluyla belirlenmiştir. Veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılarak toplanmış ve içerik analizi yaklaşımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular; genel öğretim etkinlikleri, alana özgü etkinlikler (cebir, ölçme, veri), geometri etkinlikleri, materyal kullanımı, matematiksel ispat ve akıl yürütme süreçleri ile ölçme-değerlendirme yöntemlerine ilişkin görüşler olmak üzere altı ana kategori altında düzenlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünmeyi teşvik eden, gerçek yaşam bağlamlarını içeren, teknolojik ve görsel araçlardan yararlanan, işbirliğini destekleyen ve aktif katılıma olanak tanıyan öğrenme ortamlarını tercih ettiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Buna karşın, öğretmen merkezli, ezbere dayalı ve pasif öğretim süreçleri yetersiz olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Geometri ve ispatla ilgili konularda öğrenciler, dinamik yazılım araçlarının entegrasyonuna yönelik olumlu görüş bildirmişlerdir. Aynı zamanda, öğrenme çıktılarının değerlendirilmesinde proje ve performans temelli değerlendirmelerin daha etkili olduğu belirtilmiştir. Genel olarak bulgular, üstün yetenekli bireylerin özgün öğrenme ihtiyaçlarını karşılayan farklılaştırılmış, öğrenci merkezli ve esnek öğretim tasarımlarına duyulan ihtiyacı vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Zengin, D., Broutin, M. S. T. (2026). Examining Mathematics Instructional Practices for Gifted Students Through Student Opinions. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1, 34–69. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1804156

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (80)

  1. Anderson, L. (2013). Gifted learners and mathematical achievement: An analysis of gifted instructional models [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/679
  2. Andrade, H. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
  3. Aygün, Y. İ. (2019). An investigation of mathematical thinking processes of identified and unidentified gifted students in different environments (Publication No. 626456) [Master’s thesis, Amasya University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  4. Baki, A., Güven, B., & Çekmez, E. (2012). Using dynamic geometry software to develop problem-solving skills. Mathematics and Computer Education, 46(1), 6–17. https://avesis.ktu.edu.tr/yayin/ca3d4245-7cd4-4771-9ecc-3c8ac8d57ed8/using-dynamic-geometry-software-to-develop-problem-solving-skills?utm_source
  5. Baki, Y., & Karakuş, N. (2012). Instructional technologies and material design in Turkish language teaching (1st ed.). Pegem.
  6. Bakioğlu, A., & Levent, F. (2013). Suggestions for gifted education in Turkey. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(1), 31–44. https://arastirmax.com/en/system/files/dergiler/170002/makaleler/1/1/arastrmx_170002_1_pp_31-44.pdf
  7. Balcı, A. (2013). Research in social sciences: Methods, techniques, and principles (11th ed.). Pegem Akademi. https://depo.pegem.net/9789756802403.pdf
  8. Baltacı, S., & Yıldız, A. (2015). The learning processes of prospective mathematics teachers on a topic in analytic geometry through the use of GeoGebra software. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 16(3), 295–312. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59449/854089
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807
  10. Boran, A. İ., & Aslaner, R. (2008). Problem-based learning in mathematics education at science and art centers. Inönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(15), 15–32. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/inuefd/issue/8708/108721
  11. Brookhart, S. M. (2020). How to give effective feedback to your students (2nd ed.). ASCD.
  12. Budak, Y. (2007). The relationship between learning styles and mathematics achievement of gifted students (Publication No. 200003) [Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  13. Chamberlin, M. T., & Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). Enhancing preservice teacher development: Field experiences with gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3),381-416. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ881391
  14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
  15. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x
  16. Çelikdelen, H. (2010). An evaluation of the difficulties faced by gifted students receiving support from science units in Science and Art Centers during science and technology courses at their own schools (Publication No. 249909) [Master’s thesis, Selçuk University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  17. Çetinkaya, Ç., & Döner, İ. (2012). An examination of the rights granted to gifted individuals in Turkey. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 2(3), 7–20. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/suje/issue/20631/219951
  18. Çetin, O., & Özgeldi, M. (2018). An investigation of 7th grade middle school students’ experiences with GeoGebra on translation and reflection topics. In H. Gür & H. H. Şahan (Eds.), Proceedings of the international necatibey conference on education and social science research (Vol. 5, pp. 92–106). Akademisyen. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330183203
  19. Dimitriadis, C. (2011). Provision for mathematically gifted children in eliciting activities: A comparison of gifted and general population students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598920
  20. Ecker-Lyster, M. & Niileksela, C. (2017). Enhancing gifted education for underrepresented students: Promising recruitment and programming strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40 (1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686216
  21. Fahlberg-Stojanovska, L., & Stojanovski, V. (2009). GeoGebra—Freedom to explore and learn. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 28(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrp003
  22. Fıçıcı, A., & Siegle, D. (2008). International teachers’ judgment of gifted mathematics student characteristics. Journal of Gifted Talented International, 23(1), 22-37. https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ugtixx/v23y2008i1p23-38.html
  23. Fielding, M. (2013). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000195236
  24. Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What’s in it for schools? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203464380
  25. Gagné, F. (2023). Differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT). In K. Tirri (Ed.), Exploring gifted education (pp. 61–74). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003419426-7/differentiated-model-giftedness-talent-fran%C3%A7oys-gagn%C3%A9
  26. Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J., & Cordy, M. (2011). Mathematics for gifted students in an arts- and technology-rich setting. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 397-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400303
  27. Gentry, M., & Peters, S. J. (2021). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practice. Prufrock. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003239239
  28. Gerez Cantimer, G. (2018). Students’ views on mathematical content and mathematics activities. Ihlara Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 166–186. http://ihead.aksaray.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/37860/465892
  29. Gezgin, İ., & Bal, A. P. (2021). Evaluation of the 1st-grade primary school mathematics curriculum. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 20(77), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.712486
  30. Hannah J., James A., Montelle C. & Nokes J. (2011). Meeting the needs of our best and brightest: Curriculum acceleration in tertiary mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(3), 299-312. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Meeting-the-needs-of-our-best-and-brightest%3A-in-Hannah-James/51e3a82f5787f0740b39f752b7eace0b80aa2883
  31. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 805-842).National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~harel/TowardComprehensivePerspective.pdf
  32. Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346927
  33. Hekimoğlu, S. (2004). Conducting a teaching experiment with a gifted student. Journal of Advanced Academics, 16(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-466
  34. Karabey, B., & Yürümezoğlu, K. (2015). A review for creativity and giftedness with perspective of intelligence theories. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 40, 86-107. https://izlik.org/JA86BK89MZ
  35. Kağızmanlı, T. B., & Tatar, E. (2016). The use of a computer-supported collaborative dynamic learning environment in teaching conics. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(2), 9–30. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijesim/issue/33759/373897
  36. Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234653502_Deferential_Differentiation_What_Types_of_Differentiation_Do_Students_Want
  37. Karjanto, N., & Acelajado, M. (2022). Sustainable learning, cognitive gains, and improved attitudes in college algebra flipped classrooms. Sustainability, 14(19), 12500. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912500
  38. Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. R. (2017). Education of children with special needs (14th ed.). Nobel. https://www.nobelyayin.com/ozel-gereksinimli-cocuklarin-egitimi-educating-exceptional-children-14538.html
  39. Kutluca, T., & Zengin, Y. (2011). Evaluation of students’ opinions on the use of GeoGebra in mathematics teaching. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 17, 160–172. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/787040
  40. Laine, S., Hotulainen, R., & Tirri, K. (2019). Finnish elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education. Roeper Review, 41(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1592794
  41. Leikin, R. (2021). When practice needs more research: The nature and nurture of mathematical giftedness. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53, 1579–1589. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11858-021-01276-9
  42. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  43. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
  44. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Aspen Systems Corporation. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1970586434830118940
  45. Memnun, D. S., & Akkaya, R. (2010). Primary school seventh grade students’ opinions about the mathematics course. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 3(2), 100-117. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akukeg/issue/29341/313982
  46. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=U4lU_-wJ5QEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr#v=onepage&q&f=false
  47. MoNE. (2024). Directive for Science and Art Centers. https://sultangazibilsem.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/34/41/769514/dosyalar/2024_10/30125658_bilsemyonergesi.pdf
  48. Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106, 651-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00354.x
  49. Mogensen, A. (2011). The proficiency challenge: An action research program on teaching of gifted math students in grades 1-9. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1213
  50. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/
  51. Oflaz, G., Bulut, N. & Akcakin, V. (2016). Pre-service classroom teachers’ proof schemes in geometry: A case study of three pre-service teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 133-152. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/225127
  52. Özçelik, D. (2017). The effectiveness of a differentiated mathematics curriculum developed for gifted students (Publication No. 484072) [Doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  53. Özdemir, S. (2016). Continuous professional development as an indicator of teacher quality. Gazi Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(3), 233–244. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gebd/issue/35206/390664
  54. Özdemir, D. (2018). Perceptions of gifted elementary students about mathematics courses in their schools. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 26(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.375695
  55. Öztürk, M., Akkan, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2017). An investigation of gifted high school students’ knowledge and awareness regarding concepts related to proof. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 4(2), 19–35. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jgedc/issue/38702/449431
  56. Özyurt, M., & Kuşdemir-Kayıran, B. (2020). An investigation of classroom teachers’ acquisition of subject-specific competencies in relation to their teacher education and professional experience. Kalem Journal of Education and Human Sciences, 10(1), 337–363. https://doi.org/10.23863/kalem.2020.159
  57. Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T. L. (2011). The effects of clustering and curriculum on the development of gifted learners’ math achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 569-594. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/016235321103400403
  58. Piirto, J. (2021). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238485
  59. Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is 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
  60. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150 159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
  61. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608009000909?via%3Dihub
  62. Robinson, C., & Taylor, C. (2007). Theorizing student voice: Values and perspectives. Improving Schools, 10(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480207073702
  63. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
  64. Samples, S. L. (2010). A case study of minority and low-SES gifted students’ perceptions of the effects of a gifted resource specialist [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/0aef46a0-f8f7-4377-a138-1b05562ebefa/content
  65. Sezginsoy, B. (2007). An evaluation of the practices of Science and Art Centers (Publication No. 206477) [Master’s thesis, Balıkesir University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  66. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-389
  67. Şenol, C. (2011). Teachers’ opinions on gifted education programs (Publication No. 289684) [Master’s thesis, Fırat University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  68. Tirri, K., & Laine, S. (2017). Teacher education in inclusive education. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 761–776). SAGE. https://scispace.com/papers/teacher-education-in-inclusive-education-362ecbe6dr
  69. Tolppanen, S., & Tirri, K. (2014). How an enrichment summer program is meeting the expectations of gifted science students: A case study from Finland. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 2(1), 103–115. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1301413.pdf
  70. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. https://rutamaestra.santillana.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/The-Differentiated-Classroom-Responding-to-the-Needs.pdf
  71. Topuz, F., & Birgin, O. (2020). Seventh-grade students’ opinions on GeoGebra-supported instructional material and learning environment for the “circle and disk” topic. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 8(15), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.638142
  72. OECD (2021), 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World, PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en.
  73. Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2020). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233961
  74. Sriraman, B., Haavold, P., & Lee, K. (2013). Mathematical creativity and giftedness: A commentary on and review of theory, new operational views, and ways forward. Mathematics Education, 45(1), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0494-6
  75. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2019). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. In S. I. Pfeiffer et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gifted and talented education (pp. 3–17). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238454
  76. Taş, N. (2018). The effect of differentiated computer-assisted mathematics activities on gifted students’ computational thinking self-efficacy and attitudes toward mathematics (Publication No. 512614) [Doctoral dissertation, Atatürk University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  77. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
  78. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311508750_Sosyal_bilimlerde_nitel_arastirma_yontemleri
  79. Yıldız, H. (2010). A study on SaAC, a model in the education of gifted students (Publication No. 279748) [Master’s thesis, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  80. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2196587