SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2017 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Examination of Science and Technology Teachers’ Attitude and Opinions Related Giftedness and Gifted Education in Turkey

Kürşat KUNT
Hasan Said TORTOP
Pages
37–54
Publication Date
2017-03-06
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In addition, science and technology teachers stated that supportive education for gifted children in Science and Art Centers (SACs) was insufficient and they adequately could not cooperated with this institution.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, it is aimed to examine the Science and Technology teachers’ attitude and views related giftedness and gifted education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group of the research consists of 111 Science and Technology teachers in the academic year 2011-2012 in the province of A.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, science and technology teachers stated that supportive education for gifted children in Science and Art Centers (SACs) was insufficient and they adequately could not cooperated with this institution.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011-2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:gifted education · science education · science curriculum

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to examine the Science and Technology teachers’ attitude and views related giftedness and gifted education. This research used both qualitative and quantitative research designs, is a mixed pattern research. The study group of the research consists of 111 Science and Technology teachers in the academic year 2011-2012 in the province of A. These participants were applied Teacher Attitude Scale towards Gifted Education (TASGE) as collection of quantitative data. For obtaining qualitative data, semi-structured interview was used with four science and technology teachers. For the analysis of quantitative data, percentage, frequency, t-test and analysis of variance were used. The data obtained from the interview were subjected to content analysis. As a result, science and technology teachers' attitudes towards gifted education were found to be slightly above the undecided attitude. In addition, science and technology teachers stated that supportive education for gifted children in Science and Art Centers (SACs) was insufficient and they adequately could not cooperated with this institution.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUNT, K., TORTOP, H. S. (2017). Examination of Science and Technology Teachers’ Attitude and Opinions Related Giftedness and Gifted Education in Turkey. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 37–54. https://ajindex.com/articles/262634

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Ataman, A. (1998). Üstün zekâlılar ve üstün yetenekliler, (Edt. S. Eripek), Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları No:1018. Feldhusen, F.,J. (1986). A conception of giftedness: conception of giftedness. In RJ. Steinberg, J.E Davidson (Eds), conception of giftedness, New York: Cambridge University Press. Gagné, F., & Nadeau, L. (1985). Dimensions of attitudes toward giftedness. In A. H. Roldan, (ed.), Gifted and talented children, youth and adults: Their social perspective and culture (pp. 148-170). New York: TrilliumPress.Gagné, F. (1995). Brief presentation of gagne and nadeau's attitude scale: opinions about the gifted and their education, Montreal: University of Québec. Hoogeveen, L., Van Hell, G., J. & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teacher Attitudes Toward Academic Acceleration and Accelerated Students in the Netherlands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 30-59.
  2. IIRSAC (2010). [Internal Inspection Report of Science and Art Centers]. BİLSEM Süreci: Üstün Yetenekli Bireylerin Eğitimi İç Denetim Raporu (BSMİDR). Retriewed from: http://icden.meb.gov.tr/digeryaziler/Bilim_Sanat_Merkezleri_Ic_Denetim_Ra.pdf.
  3. Kunt K., Tortop, H.S. (2013). The metaphoric perceptions of gifted students about science and art centers in Turkey. Journal of Gifted Education Research. 1(3), Special Issue, 117-127.
  4. Miles, Matthew B., ve Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: a source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Ministry of National Education (MoNE), Republic of Turkey (2006). Board of Education [Talim Terbiye Kurulu], Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi 6-8. Sınıflar Öğretim Programı [Science Curriculum 6th-9th Grade.]. Retriewed from: http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari/icerik/17. Ministry of National Education (MoNE), Republic of Turkey, (2007). BİLSEM Yönergesi [Science and Art Centers Directive]. Retriewed from: http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/2593_0.html.
  5. Sak, U. (2008). Üstün Zekâlı Çocuklar [Gifted Children] İ.H. Diken (Ed), Özel Eğitime Gereksinimi Olan Öğrenciler ve Özel Eğitim, 497-535, Ankara:
  6. Pegem Akademi. Sak, U. (2011). Üstün zekâlılar: özellikleri, tanılamaları, eğitimleri. Ankara:
  7. Maya Akademi. Sezginsoy, B. (2007). Bilim ve sanat merkezi uygulamasının değerlendirilmesi [An evaluation on science - art center implementation]. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi,
  8. Türkiye. Tatar, N. & Kuru, M. (2006). Fen eğitiminde araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının akademik başarıya etkisi [The effect of inqry-based learning approach