Journals / HAYEF Journal of Education / 2014 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

-

ÜSTÜN YETENEKLİ ÖĞRENCİLERDE BEKLENMEDİK DÜŞÜK AKADEMİK BAŞARI

Pages
1–21
Publication Date
2015-01-07
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)

The main objective of this study to add to the knowledge base on this issue to educators, counsellors and parents by investigating the occurrence of underachievement behaviours and their determining factors in a population of gifted students

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the most common misperceptions about gifted students is that they will be successful with the normal curriculum offered in schools.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In fact, a number of gifted students at the school system were not performing at a level commensurate with their abilities, and even a great many of of them show underachievement character traits.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The main objective of this study to add to the knowledge base on this issue to educators, counsellors and parents by investigating the occurrence of underachievement behaviours and their determining factors in a population of gifted students
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Üstün Yetenekli Öğrenci · Eğitim · Başarı Düşüklüğü

Abstract

One of the most common misperceptions about gifted students is that they will be successful with the normal curriculum offered in schools. Most people assume that those intellectually gifted students succeed in all subjects, have high scores in tests and that will guarantee a bright future. In fact, a number of gifted students at the school system were not performing at a level commensurate with their abilities, and even a great many of of them show underachievement character traits. Regarding the literature in this field, studies have shown that from 9% to 50% of these students are performing below their ability levels. Very recently, the topic of gifted underachievement and how to reverse it has received a great deal of attention in the gifted education literature. Educators commonly identify most of the gifted student underachievers as reluctant, lazy, unmotivated, or the ones as having behaviour problems (Seeley, 2004). The main objective of this study to add to the knowledge base on this issue to educators, counsellors and parents by investigating the occurrence of underachievement behaviours and their determining factors in a population of gifted students

Özet

Üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli olarak tanımlanan öğrenciler hakkında en yaygın yanlış anlamalardan biri, okullarda sunulan normal eğitim programlarında bu çocukların başarılı olacağıdır (Callahan, 2007). Çoğu insan bu öğrencilerin okulda her konuda başarılı olacaklarını, her türlü sınavdan yüksek not alarak parlak bir geleceklerinin de garanti olduğunu düşünmektedirler. Oysaki Okullarımızda eğitim gören üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrencilerimizin bir kısmı yetenekleri ile kıyaslandığında başarı düzeylerinin iyi olmadığı hatta büyük bir bölümün düşük başarı gösterdiği görülmektedir. Bu konu ile ilgili alanyazın incelendiğinde üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrencilerin %9 - %50’ sinin yeteneklerinin altında performans gösterdikleri belirtilmiştir. Son zamanlarda üstün zekâlılar eğitim alanyazına bakıldığında düşük başarı ve bunun giderilmesine yönelik bir ilgi vardır. Eğitimciler düşük başarı gösteren üstün yetenekli öğrencileri genelde isteksiz tembel, motivasyonu düşük ve davranış problemi olan öğrenciler olarak görmektedirler (Seeley, 2004). Bu çalışma son derece yetenekli öğrencilerde beklemediğimiz bu düşük başarı davranışı ve sebep olan belirleyici etkenlerin inceleyerek bu konuda eğitimcilere, rehberlere ve ailelere katkı sağlamak amaçlanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAMAN, Y., OĞURLU, Ü. (2015). -. HAYEF Journal of Education, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 1–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/992343

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Baker, J. (2011). Stability of racial differences in gifted education: the case for stereotype threat. Talent Development and Excellence, 3(1), 27-31.
  2. Baslanti, U. ve McCoach, D.B. (2006). Factors related to the underachievement of university students in Turkey. Roeper Review, 28 (4), 210-215.
  3. Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., ve Hébert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 224-235.
  4. Bellamy, L. (2005). A critical analysis of how differentiation can promote the full inclusion of three gifted and talented students in a mixed-ability, Year 9 class studying Macbeth. English Teaching: Practice ve Critique, 4(2), 72-83.
  5. Benbow, C. P., ve Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How "equity" can lead to inequity for high potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249-292.
  6. Birdsall, P. ve Correa, L. (2007). Gifted underachievers. Leadership, 36 (4), 21-23.
  7. Boazman, J. ve Sayler, M. (2011). Personal well-being of gifted students following participation in an early college-entrance program. Roeper Review, 33(2), 76-85.
  8. Burney, V., ve Beilke, J. (2008). Constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(3), p. 295-321.
  9. Burney, V.H. (2008). Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education. Roeper Review, 30(2), 130-139.
  10. Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. Heller, F. Monks & H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development o f intellectually giftedness and talent (ss. 649-668). London: Pergamon Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Clemons, T. L. (2008). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model. Roeper Review, 30(1), 69-78.
  11. Colangelo, N., ve Assouline, S. G. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg ve R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed. ss. 595-607).
  12. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., Marron, M.A., Castellano, J.A., Clinkenbeard, P.R., Rogers, K. Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Journal of Advanced Acvademics, 21(2), 180-203.
  13. Cooper, C.R. (2009). Myth 18: It is fair to teach all children the same way. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 283-285.
  14. Çağlar, D. (2004). Okulda başarısız olan üstün z