Üstün Yetenekli ve Tipik Gelişim Gösteren İlköğretim 1. Kademe Çocuklarının Sosyal Davranışlarının İncelenmesi

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 0 - 0, 01.06.2016

Çağla Gür Nurcan Koçak Nalan Saltık Dilek Akkoç Zuhal Duman Çiğdem Kayabağdaş Elif Demir Zübeyde Kara

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.321393

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışmada, üstün yetenekli ve tipik gelişim gösteren çocuklar arasında okul sosyal davranışları açısından (sosyal yeterlik ve antisosyal davranışlar) anlamlı bir farklılık olup olmadığı araştırılmış olup bunun yanı sıra cinsiyet ve sınıf (çocuğun kaçıncı sınıfa devam ettiği) faktörlerinin üstün yetenekli ve tipik gelişim gösteren çocukların sosyal yeterlik ve antisosyal davranışları üzerinde etkisi olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Çalışmada genel tarama modellerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu Ankara il merkezinde birinci kademe ilköğretim okuluna devam eden 60 üstün yetenekli ve 60 tipik gelişim gösteren toplam 120 çocuk oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Okul Sosyal Davranış Ölçeği ve Kişisel Bilgi Formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde t-testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi ve Tukey testi kullanılmıştır. Yapılan çalışma sonucunda, üstün yetenekli olan ve tipik gelişim gösteren çocuklar arasında sosyal yeterlik açısından anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu, antisosyal davranışlar açısından ise anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığı bulunmuştur. Cinsiyetin sosyal davranış üzerindeki etkisinin her iki grup için de anlamlı olmadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Sınıf düzeyindeki etki göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, üstün yetenekli ve tipik gelişim gösteren çocuklarda devam ettikleri sınıflar açısından sosyal yeterlik toplam ve alt ölçek puanlarında açısından anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu görülmüştür. Üstün yetenekli çocuklarda devam ettikleri sınıflar açısından antisosyal davranışlar toplam ve alt ölçek puanlarında (Antisosyal/Saldırgan Davranış ile küstah/Bozguncu Davranış Puanlarında) anlamlı farklılık bulunmazken, Düşmanca/ Öfkeli davranışlar alt ölçeğinde 2-4*,sınıflar arasında anlamlı farklılık görülmüştür. Tipik gelişim gösteren çocukların antisosyal davranışlar toplam ve alt ölçek puanlarında sınıflar açısından anlamlı farklılık bulunamamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üstün yetenekli çocuklar, sosyal yeterlik, antisosyal davranışlar

The Study of First Graders’ Social Behaviors Who Are Showing Typical Development and Who Are Gifted

Öz

Whether there is a significant difference between
children who are gifted and who are typically developing is studied in the
present study in terms of social behaviors (social competence and antisocial
behaviors). Besides, the gender and grade (in what grade is the child)
variables are also considered regarding their effects on gifted and typically
developing children’s social competence and antisocial behaviors. Relational
model of general survey model is used in the present study. 120 primary school
students studying in the first grade in the city center of Ankara formed the
study group (60 gifted and 60 typically developing children). School Social
Behavior Scale and Personal Information Form were used as data collection
tools. As a result of the study, it is found that there was a meaningful
difference between the children who are gifted and the ones who were developing
typically in terms of social competence. However, there was no significant
difference in terms of antisocial behavior. It is found that gender had no
significant effect on social behavior for both groups. Considering the effect
of the grade level, a significant difference was found in terms of gifted and
typically developing children’s total social competence score and subscale
scores. While there was no significant difference in gifted children’s total
antisocial behavior scores and subscale scores (Antisocial / Aggressive
Behavior and arrogant / defeatists behaviors scores), there was a meaningful
difference in hostile / angry behavior subscale among second-fourth graders.
There was no meaningful difference between typically developing children’s
total scores of antisocial behaviors and their subscale scores in terms of
grade levels. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gifted children, social competence, antisocial behaviors

Kaynakça

• Altun,F.& Yazıcı,H.,(2012). Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Benlik Kavramları ve Akademik Öz-Yeterlik İnançları: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (23), 319 – 334.
• Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. A. (2001). Varieties of childhood bullying: Values, emotion processes, and social competence. Social Development,10(1), 59-73.
• Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Sager Brown, K. (2007). Serving children who are
• Bain, S. K., Choate, S. M., & Bliss, S. L. (2006). Perceptions of developmental, social, and emotional issues in giftedness: Are they realistic? Roeper Review, 29, 41–48.
• Bainbridge,C.(2011) Social and emotional problems affecting gifted children. http://giftedkids.about.com/od/socialemotionalissues/a/gtproblems.htm 28.02.2011 tarihinde ulaşılmıştır.
• Chagas, J. F. (2008). Adolescentes talentosos: Características individuais e familiares (Master Dissertation). University of Brasília, Brasília. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10482/1227. (27.12.2015)
• Chesnokova, O., & Subbotsky, E. (2014). Social Creativity in Primary-school Children: How to Measure, Develop and Accept it. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 146, 141-146.
• Clark,B. (2002). Growing up gifted (5th Ed.) Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merill.
• Clickeman, S.M. (2007). Social competence in children. USA: Springer US. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K. ve Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73, 1134-1142.
• Çetinkaya,Ç.(2014). The effect of gifted students’ creative problem solving program on creative thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,116,3722-3726.
• Çorbacı-Oruç, A. (2008). 6 yaş çocuklarında sosyal yeterliliğin, akran ilişkilerinin ve sosyal bilgi işleme sürecinin değerlendirilmesi. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Ankara. Çözme Becerilerinin Çesitli Degiskenler Açısından İncelenmesi: Pamukkale Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22 (2): 10-22.
• Dai, D. Y.; Swanson, J. A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126-138.
• Dodge, K., Coie, J., & Brakke, N. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected adolescents: Th e roles of social approach and agression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 389-410.
• Field, T., Harding, J., Yando, R., Gonzales, K., Lasko, D., Bendell, D., & Marks, C. (1998). Feelings and attitudes of gifted students. Adolescence, 33(130), 331-342.
• Fonseca, C. (2011). Emotional intensity in gifted students: Helping kids cope with explosive feelings. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
• Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. London: David Fulton Publishers.
• Freitas, F.M. L. P. D., Del Prette, A., & Del Prette, Z. A. P. (2014). Social skills of gifted and talented children. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 19(4), 288-295.
• Galloway, B., & Porath, M. (1997). Parent and teacher views of gifted children’s social abilities. Roeper Review, 20(2), 118-121.
• Galluci,N.T., Middleton,G. & Kline,A. (1999). The independence of creative potential and behaviour disorders in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(3),194-203.
• Genç, S.Z., & Kalafat, T. (2007) Ögretmen Adaylarının Demokratik Tutumları ile Problem gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 30(4), 450-478, 535-537.
• Gür,Ç., Koçak,N.,Demircan,A., Baç,B.U., Şirin,N. & Şafak,M. (2015). Okulöncesi Eğitim Kurumlarına Devam Eden 48-60 Ay Çocukların Sosyal Yetkinlik ve Davranış Değerlendirme Durumlarının İncelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 4(180),13-23.
• Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (2003). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Hanish, L. D & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89.
• Hanish, L. D., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Spinrad, T. L., Ryan, P. & Schmidt, S. (2004). The expression and regulation of negative emotions:Risk factors for young children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 335-353.
• Howley, C. B., Howley, A., & Pendarvis, E. D. (1995). Out of our minds: Anti-intellectualism and talent development in American schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Jerath, J. M., Hasija, S. & Malhotra, D. (1993). A study of state anxiety scores in a problem solving situation. Studia Psychologica, 35(2), 143-150.
• Johnston, C., Patenaude, R. L., & Inman, G. A. (1992). Attributions for hyperactive and aggressive child behaviors. Social Cognition, 10(3), 255-270.
• Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. (15. bs) Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Kuyucu, Y. (2012). Duyguları anlama becerileri farklı düzeydeki çocukların (60-72 ay) akranlarına karşı gösterdikleri duygusal ve davranışsal tepkilerinin incelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü: Konya
• Lee,S.Y.,Olszewski-Kubilius,P., & Thomson,D. (2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly,56, 90-104.
• Loeber, R. (1985). Patterns of development of antisocial behavior. Annuals of Child Development, 2, 77-116.
• McCallister, C., Nash, W. R., & Meckstroth, E. (1996). Th e social competence of gifted children: Experiments and experience. Roeper Review, 18(4), 273- 276.
• McDowell (1984). Coping with social and emotional factors through various strategies: Help for the gifted student. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 9(1), 18-27.
• Merrell, K. W. (1993). Using behavior rating scales to assess social skills and antisocial behavior in school settings: Development of the School Social Behavior Scales.School Psychology Review, 22(1),115-134.
• Miller, M., & Nunn, G. D. (2001). Using group discussions to improve social problem-solving and learning. Education, 121(3), 470.
• Moltzen, R. (2004). Historical perspectives. In D. McAlpine, & R. Moltzen, R. (Eds.), Gifted and talented, New Zealand perspectives (2nd ed.) ( pp. 1- 33). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Kanuka Grove Press.
• Moon, S. M. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students don’t face problems and challenges. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 274-276.
• Moon, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Social/emotional issues, underachievement,and counseling of gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Nazlı, S. (2008). Sosyal Davranış Ölçeğinin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 57-62.
• Needham, V. (2012). Primary teachers’ perceptions of the social and emotional aspects of gifted and talented education. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 17(1),1-18.
• Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10-17.
• Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330-341.
• Peterson, S. J. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280-282.
• Piechowski, M. M. (2006). “Mellow out,” they say. If I only could: Intensities and sensitivitiesof the young and bright. Madison, WI: Yunasa Books.
• Preuss, L. J., & Dubow, E. F. (2004). A comparison between intellectually gifted and typical children in their coping responses to a school and a peer stressor. Roeper Review, 26, 105-111
• Prinstein, M. J. & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and 1054 FRASER ET AL.aggression as predictors of adolescent girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 103-112.
• Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169.
• Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R. & Snyder, J. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
• Richards, J., Encel, J., & Shute, R. (2003). The emotional and behavioral adjustment of intellectually gifted adolescents: A multi-dimensional, multi-informant approach. High Ability Studies, 14(2), 153-163.
• Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and youth. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 33-51). New York: Springer.
• Saygılı, G. (2014). Problem-solving skills employed by gifted children and their peers in public primary schools in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 42(Supplement 1 to Issue 1), 53S-63S.
• Seven, S. (2008). Yedi- sekiz yaş çocuklarının sosyal becerilerinin incelenmesi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 151-174.
• Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Th e social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31-40). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Smith,J.M.(2013). Understanding the social and emotional needs of gifted children. Rivier Academic Journal,9(2),1-4.
• Smutny, J. F. (Ed.) (1998). The Young Gifted Child: Potential and Promise, An Anthology.
• Sowa, C. J., McIntire, J., May, K. M., & Bland, L. (1994). Social and emotional adjustment themes across gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 95-98.
• Threlfall, J. & Hargreaves. M., 2008. The problem‐solving methods of mathematically gifted and older average‐attaining students., High ability studies , 19 (1), 83-98.
• Vialle,W., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007) On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 569 – 586.
• Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: BasicBooks.