Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Writing Skills Learning Field according to Stake's Responsive Evaluation Model in terms of Gifted and Talented Students

Üstün Zekâlı ve Yetenekli Öğrenciler Açısından Yazma Becerileri Öğrenme Alanının Stake’in İhtiyaca Cevap Verici Değerlendirme Modeline Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Derya Acar Başeğmez(BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ, EĞİTİM PROGRAMLARI VE ÖĞRETİM (DR))0000-0002-2271-8211
Kemal Oğuz Er(BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, NECATİBEY EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, EĞİTİM PROGRAMLARI VE ÖĞRETİM ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-6098-2067
Ahmet Kurnaz(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, ÖZEL EĞİTİM BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-1134-8689
Pages
831–877
Publication Date
2024-01-02
🏛️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 results indicate that the students experience writing anxiety, the topics are relatively appropriate to the level of the students, the variety of methods and techniques and the time are insufficient, and both traditional and alternative assessment methods are used during the evaluation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research aims to evaluate the 2019 Turkish curriculum writing skills learning field in terms of gifted and talented students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the research, 21 volunteer students were interviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that the students experience writing anxiety, the topics are relatively appropriate to the level of the students, the variety of methods and techniques and the time are insufficient, and both traditional and alternative assessment methods are used during the evaluation.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkçe dersi öğretim programı · yazma becerisi · Stake’in ihtiyaca cevap verici değerlendirme modeli

Abstract

This research aims to evaluate the 2019 Turkish curriculum writing skills learning field in terms of gifted and talented students. In the research, a holistic single case design, one of the case study designs, was used. The study group was determined by using “criterion sampling” and “convenience sampling” methods from the purposive sampling methods. The sample of the research consisted of gifted and talented students at the fourth grade level in the Sincan region of Ankara province. Within the scope of the research, 21 volunteer students were interviewed. A semi-structured interview form developed by the researcher was used as the data collection tool. The data were collected in April and May 2022. The content analysis method was used to analyze the data. The reliability of the study was determined to be 0.83. The results indicate that the students experience writing anxiety, the topics are relatively appropriate to the level of the students, the variety of methods and techniques and the time are insufficient, and both traditional and alternative assessment methods are used during the evaluation.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrenciler açısından 2019 Türkçe dersi öğretim programı yazma becerileri öğrenme alanının değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırmada durum çalışması desenlerinden biri olan bütüncül tek durum deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada amaçlı örnekleme yöntemleri arasında bulunan “ölçüt örnekleme” ve “kolay ulaşılabilir durum örneklemesinden” yararlanılarak çalışma gurubu belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemini Ankara ilinin Sincan ilçesindeki dördüncü sınıf düzeyindeki üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrenciler oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında gönüllü 21 öğrenci ile görüşme yapılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Veriler, 2022 yılının Nisan ve Mayıs aylarında toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın güvenirliğinin 0.83 olduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında öğrencilerin yazma kaygısı yaşadığı, konuların nispeten öğrenci düzeyine uygun olduğu, yöntem ve tekniklerin çeşitliliğinin ve sürenin yetersiz olduğu, değerlendirme sürecinde hem geleneksel hem de alternatif değerlendirme yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Başeğmez, D. A., Er, K. O., Kurnaz, A., *, D. A. B. (2024). Evaluation of Writing Skills Learning Field according to Stake's Responsive Evaluation Model in terms of Gifted and Talented Students. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 831–877. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1361586

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Arcagök, S. (2021). An evaluation of the 2019 Turkish course curricula 6th grade learning outcomes. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 9(2), 589-602. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.878033
  2. Ateş, A., & Akaydın, Ş. (2015). An investigation of secondary school studentsʹ writing anxiety: (Malatya province sample). Journal of Language and Literature Education, 16, 24-38.
  3. Aygören, F., & Er, K. O. (2018). Eğitimde program değerlendirme: Sınıflamalar- modeller [Program evaluation in education: Classifications-models]. Pegem Akademi.
  4. Barası, M., & Erdamar, G. (2021). Analysis of 2018 secondary school Turkish course program in terms of 21st century skills: Teachers opinions. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 21(1), 222-242. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2021.21.60703-851474
  5. Bozgün, K. (2022). A study on writing anxiety of primary school fourth grade students. Journal of Primary Education, 16, 6-15. https://doi.org/10.52105/temelegitim.16.1
  6. Çevik, A. (2021). Yazma eğitimi [Writing education]. F. Temizyürek & T. Türkben (Eds.), Türkçe öğretimine genel bir bakış, el kitabı [An overview of Turkish teaching, handbook] (pp. 253-300). Pegem Akademi.
  7. Demirel, Ö. (2015). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya [Program development in education: From theory to practice] (22nd ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  8. Dilekçi, A. (2022). Evaluation of Turkish textbooks in terms of quality. Trakya Journal of Education, 12(3), 1310-1328. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.978264
  9. Direkçi, B., Akbulut, S., & Şimşek, B. (2019). The analysis of Turkish course curriculum (2018) and secondary school Turkish textbooks in terms of digital literacy skills. International Journal of Euroasian Researches, 7(16), 797-813. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/678093
  10. Engin, A. O., & Arslan, A. (2019). The evaluation of 5th class Turkish course program according to teachers’ point of views (Gaziantep province sampling). Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research, 3(5), 19-39. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/778253
  11. Eripek, S. (2005). Özel gereksinimi olan çocuklar ve özel eğitim [Children with special needs and special education]. S. Eripek (Ed.), Açık öğretim fakültesi okulöncesi öğretmenliği lisans programı: Özel eğitim [Open education faculty preschool teaching undergraduate program: Special education] (4th ed., pp.1-14). Anadolu University.
  12. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2019). Program değerlendirme: Alternatif yaklaşımlar ve uygulama rehberi [Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines] (M. K. Aydın & B. Bavlı, Trans. Eds.). Pegem Akademi.
  13. Güneş, F. (2021). Türkçe öğretimi. Yaklaşımlar ve modeller [Teaching Turkish. Approaches and models] (10th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  14. İmrol, M. H., Dinçer, A., Güldenoğlu, B. N. D., & Babadoğan, M. C. (2021). Evaluation of the 2018 Turkish curriculum. Education and Science, 46(207), 403-437. https://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9625
  15. Kaldırım, A., & Tavşanlı, Ö. F. (2021). Süreç temelli yazma yaklaşımı [Process-based writing approach]. E. Kolaç & S. Dal (Eds.), Etkinliklerle Türkçe öğretimi [Turkish teaching with activities] (2nd ed., pp. 355-428). Nobel.
  16. Kaplan, K., & Demir, M. (2023). Evaluation of the Turkish curriculum (2019) according to context-input-process-product (CIPP) model. Trakya Journal of Education, 13(1), 770-785. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1125160
  17. Kaplan, S. N. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180-193). Creative Learning Press.
  18. Karacaoğlu, M. Ö., Dağ, M., & Uzun, O. (2021). Examination of writing activities in Turkish textbooks. IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, (10), 96-126. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.852233
  19. Karadağ-Yılmaz, R., & Erdoğan, Ö. (2020). Yazma, yaratıcı yazma eğitimi [Writing, creative writing education]. H. Akyol & A. Şahin (Eds.), Türkçe öğretimi. Öğretmen adayları ve öğretmenler için [Teaching Turkish. For candidate teachers and teachers] (2nd ed., pp. 55-79). Pegem Akademi.
  20. Karatay, H. (2013). Süreç temelli yazma modelleri: 4+1 planlı yazma ve değerlendirme modeli [Process-based writing models: 4+1 planned writing and assessment model]. M. Özbay (Ed.), Yazma Eğitimi [Writing Education] (3rd ed., pp. 21-42). Pegem Akademi.
  21. Kırmızı, F. S., & Akkaya, N. (2009). Opinions of teachers about the problems in the implementation of new Turkish teaching program. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 25(25), 42-54. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/114677
  22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
  23. Mutlu, H. H., Süğümlü, Ü., & Çinpolat, E. (2019). Assessment of secondary school textbooks prepared on the basis of Turkish curriculum (2018) with teacher’s opinions. Journal of National Education, 48(224), 101-121. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/858260
  24. Oryaşın, U. (2020). Examination of activities in Turkish textbooks with a holistic understanding [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
  25. Özdemir, E. E., & Akkaya, N. (2020). Evaluation of elementary school Turkish lesson curriculum in the context of the field of learning writing and determination of the place of planning and writing strategies in the curriculum. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 15(3), 2285-2301. https://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.42864
  26. Özdemir, S. M. (2009). Curriculum evaluation in education and examination of the curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education, 6(2), 126-149. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/146317
  27. Öznacar, M. D., & Bildiren, A. (2016). Üstün zekâlı öğrencilerin eğitimi ve eğitsel bilim etkinlikleri [Education of gifted students and educational science activities] (2nd ed.). Anı.
  28. Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 298-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200302
  29. Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekâlılar. Özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri [Gifted children. Characteristics, identification, education] (2nd ed.). Maya Akademi.
  30. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2015). Örnekleriyle eğitimde program değerlendirme [Program evaluation in education with examples]. Anı.
  31. Stake, R. E. (2011). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 180-201. https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/303/298
  32. Subakan, Y., & Koç, M. (2019). Mobile technologies used for the development and education of individuals with special educational needs. Science, Education, Art and Technology Journal (SEAT Journal), 3(2), 51-61. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/586372
  33. Sulak, S. E., & Çapanoğlu, A. Ş. (2021). Evaluation of primary school Turkish textbooks with a holistic approach based on the views of primary school teachers. Ahi Evran University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7(3), 830-849. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.979263
  34. Şahin, F. (2018). Müfredat modelleri [Curriculum models]. F. Şahin (Ed.), Özel yetenekli öğrenciler ve eğitimleri [Gifted students and their education] (pp. 65-104). Anı.
  35. Şimşek, T. (2022). Comparative evaluation of Turkish lesson writing skills within the framework of curriculum. RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 29, 19-36. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1163998
  36. Tabak, G., & Göçer, A (2013). Evaluating the writing skill of sixth and eighth grade Turkish language teaching curriculum in terms of product and process approaches. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(2), 147-169. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1490580
  37. Tomlinson, C. A. (2007). Öğrenci gereksinimlerine göre farklılaştırılmış eğitim [The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners] (Diye kültürlerarası iletişim hizmetleri, Trans.). Sev.
  38. Tortop, H. S. (2015). Üstün zekâlılar eğitiminde farklılaştırılmış öğretim: Müfredat farklılaştırma modelleri [Differentiated instruction in gifted education: Curriculum differentiation models]. Genç Bilge.
  39. Uşun, S. (2016). Eğitimde program değerlendirme: Süreçler-yaklaşımlar ve modeller [Program evaluation in education: Processes-approaches and models] (2nd ed.). Anı.
  40. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (9th ed.). Seçkin.
  41. Yıldız, M., & Ceyhan, S. (2016). The investigation of 4th grade primary school students’ reading and writing anxieties in terms of various variables. Turkish Studies, 11(2), 1301-1316. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9370
  42. Yılmaz, N. (2019). The writing anxiety levels of the secondary school students and the determination of the reasons (Elazığ) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Inonu University.
  43. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.