SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 43

A SUPPLEMENTARY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED IN IDENTIFYING GIFTED IN THE FIELD OF VISUAL ARTS: PORTFOLIO EVALUATION

GÖRSEL SANATLAR ALANINDA ÜSTÜN YETENEKLİLERİN TANILANMASINDA KULLANILABİLECEK YARDIMCI BİR YÖNTEM: PORTFÖY DEĞERLENDİRME

Atilla Şirin(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5915-6497
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-27
🏛️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 portfolio assessment is not only an evaluation tool but also a pedagogical process that supports students' artistic growth.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the functionality of portfolio assessment in identifying gifted students in the field of visual arts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Traditional identification methods often fall short in capturing the unique and multidimensional nature of artistic talent.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that portfolio assessment is not only an evaluation tool but also a pedagogical process that supports students' artistic growth.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Görsel sanatlar · üstün yetenek · portfolyo değerlendirmesi

Abstract

This study aims to examine the functionality of portfolio assessment in identifying gifted students in the field of visual arts. Traditional identification methods often fall short in capturing the unique and multidimensional nature of artistic talent. Portfolio assessment, on the other hand, provides a comprehensive framework to reflect the student’s creative process, technical skills, and aesthetic development. Within the scope of this research, types of portfolios, evaluation criteria, and both the advantages and limitations of the process are discussed theoretically. Additionally, suggestions are presented to enhance the applicability of this method. The findings indicate that portfolio assessment is not only an evaluation tool but also a pedagogical process that supports students' artistic growth. In this context, it is recommended that portfolio assessment be employed as a complementary and developmental tool in the identification of gifted students in the visual arts.

Özet

Bu çalışma, görsel sanatlar alanında üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin tanılanmasında portfolyo değerlendirme yönteminin işlevselliğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Geleneksel tanılama yöntemleri, özellikle sanatsal yeteneklerin özgün ve çok boyutlu yapısını yeterince yansıtmakta yetersiz kalabilmektedir. Portfolyo değerlendirmesi ise öğrencinin yaratıcı sürecini, teknik becerilerini ve estetik gelişimini bütüncül biçimde ortaya koyma olanağı sunar. Araştırma kapsamında portfolyo türleri, değerlendirme ölçütleri ve sürece yönelik avantajlar ile sınırlılıklar kuramsal düzeyde ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca bu yöntemin uygulanabilirliğini artırmaya yönelik öneriler sunulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, portfolyo değerlendirmesinin yalnızca bir ölçme aracı değil, aynı zamanda öğrencinin sanatsal gelişimini destekleyen pedagojik bir süreç olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda portfolyo değerlendirmesinin, üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin tanılanmasında tamamlayıcı ve geliştirici bir araç olarak kullanılması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şirin, A. (2026). A SUPPLEMENTARY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED IN IDENTIFYING GIFTED IN THE FIELD OF VISUAL ARTS: PORTFOLIO EVALUATION. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 43. https://doi.org/10.15182/diclesosbed.1696584

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2RK5K
  2. Allen, C. D. & Gerras, S. J. (2009). Developing creative and critical thinkers. Military Review, November-December, 77-83.
  3. Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.
  4. Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00230.x
  5. Barrett, H. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2
  6. Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education. Massachusetts: Davis Publications.
  7. Blandy, D., Clark, R., Efland, A. & Freedman, K. (2000). Art education: Issues in postmodernist pedagogy. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 40 (4), 373. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320555
  8. Castiglione, L. V. (1996). Portfolio assessment in art art education. Art Education Policy Review, 97(4), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.1996.9935064
  9. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Delcourt, M. A. B. (2003). Five ingredients for success: Two case studies of advocacy at the state level. Gifted Child Today, 47(1), 26-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700104
  10. Dorn, C. M., Sabol, R., Madeja, S. S., & Sabol, F. R. (2004). Assessing expressive learning: A practical guide for teacher-directed authentic assessment in K–12 visual arts education (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
  11. Eisner, E. W. (2003). The arts and the creation of mind. Language Arts, 80(5), 340-344. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483337
  12. Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803200102
  13. Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
  14. Freeman, J. (2010). Gifted lives: What happens when gifted children grow up. Routledge.
  15. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  16. Koç, A. (2023). Eğitimde alternatif değerlendirme yöntemleri. M. K. Aydın & M. Kuş (Ed.), Eğitimde değerlendirme (s. 129-160) içinde. Vizetek Yayıncılık.
  17. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (s. 20–47) içinde. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2021). An overview of creativity theories. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Creativity: An introduction (s. 17-30) içinde. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  19. MEB (T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı). (2020). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri tanılama ve yerleştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
  20. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. ASCD.
  21. Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00042-2
  22. Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60–63. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184.
  23. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekâlılar: Özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri. İstanbul: Maya Akademi.
  25. Sak, U. (2011). Tanılama sürecinde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve alternatif modeller. Üstün Zekâlılar Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(1), 1–14.
  26. Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in arts education. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
  27. Storms, S. (2009). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  28. Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
  29. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Directions Manual and Scoring Guide. Lexington: Personnel Press.
  30. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
  31. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Arts Education Policy Review 102(5), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910109600008
  32. Wolf, D. P. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 35–39.
  33. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  34. Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and practice. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 50 (4), 382-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2009.11518783
  35. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.