SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2

New Directions in Gifted Education: A Review of Changing Concepts

Üstün Zekâlılar Eğitiminde Yeni Yönelimler: Değişen Kavramlar Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Seda Şakar(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3784-4069
Pages
529–551
Publication Date
2026-08-26
🏛️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 reveal that the most prominent conceptual gap in the Turkish literature concerns representation and equity, with concepts such as underrepresentation, disproportionate representation, and the excellence gap remaining largely absent from the national literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The field of gifted education has been undergoing a significant conceptual transformation in recent years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected from 11 academics specializing in gifted education through an online form consisting of open-ended questions, and the responses were analyzed using thematic analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that the most prominent conceptual gap in the Turkish literature concerns representation and equity, with concepts such as underrepresentation, disproportionate representation, and the excellence gap remaining largely absent from the national literature.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:özel yetenek · üstün yetenek · özel eğitim

Abstract

The field of gifted education has been undergoing a significant conceptual transformation in recent years. This study aims to identify concepts that hold an important place in the international literature but have not yet become widespread in the Turkish literature. The research was conducted using a phenomenological design within qualitative research methods. Data were collected from 11 academics specializing in gifted education through an online form consisting of open-ended questions, and the responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. Based on the findings, a total of 12 concepts were identified, and three main themes were constructed by considering the relationships among these concepts. These themes were named Representation and Equity, Identification and Assessment Approaches, and Talent Development and Eminence. The findings reveal that the most prominent conceptual gap in the Turkish literature concerns representation and equity, with concepts such as underrepresentation, disproportionate representation, and the excellence gap remaining largely absent from the national literature. Significant conceptual gaps were also identified in the technical dimensions of identification as well as in talent development and eminence. It is anticipated that the findings will contribute to the understanding of these emerging concepts and support the development of a conceptual framework for researchers and practitioners in the field of gifted education.

Özet

Üstün zekâlılar eğitimi alanı son yıllarda kavramsal açıdan önemli bir dönüşüm sürecinden geçmektedir. Bu araştırmada, uluslararası literatürde önemli bir yere sahip olmasına rağmen Türkçe literatürde henüz yaygınlaşmamış kavramların belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenoloji deseniyle yürütülmüştür. Üstün zekâlılar eğitimi alanında çalışan 11 akademisyenden açık uçlu sorulardan oluşan çevrimiçi form aracılığıyla veri toplanmış; elde edilen yanıtlar tematik analiz yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Bulgular doğrultusunda toplam 12 kavram belirlenmiş ve bu kavramlar arasındaki ilişkiler dikkate alınarak üç ana tema oluşturulmuştur. Bu temalar: Temsil ve Eşitlik, Tanılama ve Değerlendirme Yaklaşımları ile Yetenek Gelişimi ve Saygınlık olarak adlandırılmıştır. Bulgular, Türkçe literatürde en belirgin kavramsal boşluğun temsil ve eşitlik alanında olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır; yetersiz temsil, orantısız temsil ve üst düzey başarı farkı gibi kavramların ulusal literatürde yeterince yer bulmadığı görülmektedir. Buna ek olarak tanılamanın teknik boyutları ile yetenek gelişimi ve saygınlık konularında da önemli kavramsal eksiklikler tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularının bu kavramların anlaşılmasına katkı sağlayacağı ve alanda kavramsal bir çerçevenin geliştirilmesine destek olacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şakar, S. (2026). New Directions in Gifted Education: A Review of Changing Concepts. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2, 529–551. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1904549

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (81)

  1. Akar, İ. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının özel yetenekli öğrenciyi aday gösterme tercihlerini etkileyen faktörler. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 1729-1758. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2019.178
  2. Anadolu Üniversitesi Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitim Programları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi [ÜYEP]. (t.y.). Anasayfa. https://uyep.anadolu.edu.tr/
  3. Arkan, S., & Köksal, M. S. (2025). Second nomination after identification: Selection of gifted students for national or international advanced educational activities. Gifted Education International, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294251401091
  4. Atmaca, F., & Tan, S. (2022). IQ: Nedir? Ne değildir? Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.5152/AUJKKEF.2022.997454
  5. Avcı-Doğan, G. A., & Tamul, Ö. F. (2024). Türkiye’de üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin tanılanması ve eğitimi. Ordu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 12-34.
  6. Bıçakçı, M. (2023). Exploring the relationship between socioeconomic status and identification of gifted in Turkey through critical systems thinking. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38(2), 186-200. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
  7. Bildiren, A., Kirişçi, N., Kavruk, S. Z., Yıldırım, Y., Bıkmaz Bilgen, Ö., & Dildeğmez, B. (2024). Developing a teacher nomination scale for gifted children in primary schools. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 25(3), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1359061
  8. Boring, E. G. (1961). Intelligence as the Tests Test it. In J. J. Jenkins & D. G. Paterson (Eds.), Studies in individual differences: The search for intelligence (pp. 210–214). Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11491-017
  9. Borland J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children. In Borland J. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-124). Teachers College Press.
  10. Borland J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In Sternberg R. J., Davidson J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  12. Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208316037
  13. Çalışkan, K., & Baloglu, M. (2023). BİLSEM’e öğrenci aday gösteren ve göstermeyen öğretmenlerin üstün yetenekliler eğitimine ilişkin özyeterliliklerinin incelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (55), 210-230. https://izlik.org/JA85XZ85MF
  14. Çitil, M., & Sak, U. (2020). Türkiye'de özel yetenekli bireylere yönelik özel eğitim hizmetleri. U. Sak, & S. Toraman (Eds.), Türkiye'de özel eğitim hizmetleri içinde. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
  15. Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678-13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
  16. Chen, Y., Spagna, A., Wu, T., Kim, T. H., Wu, Q., Chen, C., Wu, Y., & Fan, J. (2019). Testing a cognitive control model of human intelligence. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39685-2
  17. Dai, D. Y. (2020). Assessing and accessing high human potential: A brief history of giftedness and what it means to school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1514-1527. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22346
  18. Dixson, D. D., Peters, S. J., Makel, M. C., Jolly, J. L., Matthews, M. S., Miller, E. M., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Rinn, A. N., Robins, J. H., & Wilson, H. E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 22-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057
  19. Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G. W. (2011). Beyond testing: Social and psychological considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 131-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003400106
  20. Gagné, F. (2007). Ten commandments for academic talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 93-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986206296660
  21. Gagné, F. (2021). The integrative model of talent development (IMTD): From theory to educational applications. In From giftedness to gifted education (pp. 149-182). Routledge.
  22. Gentry, M., Desmet, O. A., Karami, S., Lee, H., Green, C., Cress, A., Chowkase, A., & Gray, A. (2021). Gifted education’s legacy of high stakes ability testing: Using measures for identification that perpetuate inequity. Roeper Review, 43(4), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545
  23. Grantham, T. C. (2012). Eminence-focused gifted education: Concerns about forward movement void of an equity vision. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456074
  24. Hürriyet. (2023). BİLSEM’e hazırlık kursları kapatılacak. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/egitim/bilseme-hazirlik-kurslari-kapatilacak-42363936
  25. Johnsen, S., Simonds, M., & Voss, M. (2021). Implementing evidence-based practices in gifted education: Professional learning modules on universal screening, grouping, acceleration, and equity in gifted programs (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235729
  26. Jolly, J. L. (2015). The cost of high stakes testing for high-ability students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(1), 30–36. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.433388408910205
  27. Kettler, T., & Sulak, T. N. (2022). Strength-based approaches to recognize and develop talent in twice-exceptional learners. In Critical Issues in Servicing Twice Exceptional Students: Socially, Emotionally, and Culturally Framing Learning Exceptionalities (pp. 123-136). Springer International Publishing.
  28. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
  29. Kuehl, R., Azano, A. P., & Mata, R. (2025). Addressing equity challenges and expanding opportunities in gifted education for rural multilingual learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 36(3), 563-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X251336494
  30. Lakin, J. M. (2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented minority students in gifted education: Minding the gaps in card and Giuliano’s research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16630348
  31. Lamb, K. N., Lakin, J. M., & Jolly, J. L. (2024). Gifted education coordinators’ perceptions and experiences with equity focused practices. Journal of Advanced Academics, 36(2), 175-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X241298056
  32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  33. Lo, C. O., Porath, M., Yu, H., Chen, C., Tsai, K., & Wu, I. (2018). Giftedness in the making: A transactional perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218812474
  34. Lockhart, K., Meyer, M. S., & Crutchfield, K. (2021). A content analysis of selected state plans for gifted and talented education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(1), 3-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x211026240
  35. McBee, M. T., & Makel, M. C. (2019). The quantitative implications of definitions of giftedness. AERA Open, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419831007
  36. Meyer, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2022). What’s in a name? Rethinking “gifted” to promote equity and excellence. Gifted Education International, 38(3), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211038988
  37. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). 2024-2025 eğitim öğretim yılında bilim ve sanat merkezlerinde eğitim alacak öğrencilerin bireysel değerlendirme sonuçları. https://www.meb.gov.tr/2024-2025-egitim-ogretimyilinda-bilim-ve-sanat-merkezlerinde-egitim-alacakogrencilerin-bireysel-degerlendirmesonuclari/duyuru/34455
  38. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2025). Araştırma geliştirme eğitim ve uygulama merkezi (ARGEM) ortaokulu ve lisesi öğrenci seçme ve yerleştirme kılavuzu. Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
  39. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2026). Destek eğitim programları. Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/destek-egitim-programlari/icerik/3104
  40. National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2019). Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standardsgifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12
  41. National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2025). Addressing excellence gaps in K-12 education. https://www.nagc.org/news/addressing-excellence-gaps-in-k-12-education
  42. National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (t.y.). Equity. https://www.nagc.org/equity
  43. Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., & Kulieke, M. J. (2021). Using off-level testing and assessment for gifted and talented students. Alternative Assessments, 89-106. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003232988-5
  44. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556531
  45. Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., Davis, L. C., & Worrell, F. C. (2019). Benchmarking psychosocial skills important for talent development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(168), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20318
  46. Pandina-Scot, T., Callahan, C. M., & Urquhart, J. (2008). Paint-by-number teachers and cookie-cutter students: The unintended effects of high-stakes testing on the education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 31(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190802527364
  47. Peters, S. J. (2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
  48. Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services, Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
  49. Peters, S. J., Makel, M. C., & Rambo-Hernandez, K. (2021). Local norms for gifted and talented student identification: Everything you need to know. Gifted Child Today, 44(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520985181
  50. Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M. C., Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
  51. Pfeiffer S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
  52. Plucker J. A., Hardesty J., Burroughs N. (2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. University of Connecticut, Center for Education Policy Analysis.
  53. Plucker, J. A. (2022). Policy in gifted education. In Introduction to gifted education (pp. 457-472). Routledge.
  54. Plucker, J. A., & Peters, S. J. (2017). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.
  55. Plucker, J. A., & Shelton, A. L. (2015). General intelligence (g): Overview of a complex construct and its implications for genetics research. Hastings Center Report, 45(S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.494
  56. Plucker, J. A., Peters, S. J., & Schmalensee, S. (2017). Reducing excellence gaps: A research-based model. Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 245-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517723949
  57. Plucker, J. A., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2025). Global trends in excellence gaps from 1995 to 2019. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 48(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532241301028
  58. Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2008-786
  59. Preckel, F., Golle, J., Grabner, R., Jarvin, L., Kozbelt, A., Müllensiefen, D., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Schneider, W., Subotnik, R., Vock, M., & Worrell, F. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within- and cross-domain research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 691-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895030
  60. Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795
  61. Siegle, D., Hook, T. S., & Wright, K. J. (2024). Confronting the gordian knot: Disentangling gifted education’s major issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(3), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241239617
  62. Simonton, D. K. (2018). From giftedness to eminence: Developmental landmarks across the lifespan. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 273–285). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-018
  63. Stanley, J. C. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to above‐level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199009553264
  64. Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Transformational giftedness: rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1815266
  65. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
  66. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2020). The talent development megamodel: A domain-specific conceptual framework based on the psychology of high performance. In Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 425-442). Springer International Publishing.
  67. Swiatek, M. A. (2007). The talent search model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306318
  68. Tan, S. (2022). Providing equity in gifted education in a single-state country. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 157-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040523
  69. Warne, R. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.686425
  70. Warne, R. T. (2014). Using above-level testing to track growth in academic achievement in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513793
  71. Warne, R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360
  72. Warne, R. T. (2022). Analyzing disproportionate representation in gifted education: Identification procedures, proximal causes, distal causes, and theoretical causes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037943
  73. Warne, R. T., Doty, K. J., Malbica, A. M., Angeles, V. R., Innes, S., Hall, J., & Masterson-Nixon, K. (2015). Above-level test item functioning across examinee age groups. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(1), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915584851
  74. Waterman, C. (2022). "Giftedness without gifted children" revisited. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211066947
  75. Worrell, F. C., Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2012). Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456080
  76. Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2018). Talent development: A path toward eminence. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 247–258). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-016
  77. Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski‐Kubilius, P. (2021). Giftedness and eminence: Clarifying the relationship. Gifted and Talented International, 36(1-2), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2022.2049461
  78. Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 551-576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846
  79. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayinevi.
  80. Yörük, S. (2025). Gifted education in the context of definition, scope, and identification. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 26(3), 718-744. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1540226
  81. Yüreğilli-Göksu, D. (2023). BİLSEM eğitim çıktıları içinde M. S. Köksal & M. R. Barın (Eds.), Özel yetenek ve BİLSEM’LER (ss. 222–224). Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.