High-achieving adults’ opinions on their educational lives and suggestions about educating gifted students

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to infer suggestions to improve the quality of educational services provided to gifted students based on the high-achieving adults’ educational experiences and opinions. High-achieving adults reflected on their school experiences, the problems they faced with and their struggles as students, and they stated their suggestions related to the educational services that should be provided to gifted students. The research data were gathered through phenomenological design. The study group was composed of eight high-achieving individuals from Turkey. The data were gathered through semi-structured interview forms. Content analysis method was used to analyze the data of the study. High-achieving adults stated that they were not provided with the required support and guidance from their administrators, teachers, families, and environments in order to realize their potentials. They suggested that the instruction should be differentiated through the individual needs of gifted students, and varied instructional methods should be used in order to sustain the multi-faceted development of gifted students.

Keywords

• Gifted education
• high-achieving adult
• gifted student
• educational needs
• gifted students’ problems

Project Number

SAY-2015-5069

Yüksek başarılı yetişkinlerin eğitim yaşantılarına yönelik görüşleri ve üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimine ilişkin önerileri

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı yüksek başarılı yetişkin bireylerin eğitim hayatlarına yönelik görüşleri ve önerileri doğrultusunda üstün yetenekli öğrencilere sunulan eğitim hizmetlerinin niteliğinin artırılmasına ilişkin öneriler geliştirmektir. Araştırma kapsamında, yüksek başarılı yetişkinlerin, eğitim yaşantıları ve karşılaştıkları sorunlara yönelik görüşleri ve üstün yetenekli öğrencilere sunulması gereken eğitim hizmetlerine ilişkin önerileri alınmıştır. Araştırma verileri, olgubilimsel desen çerçevesinde elde edilmiştir. Çalışma grubu, yüksek başarılı sekiz yetişkin bireyden oluşmaktadır. Araştırma verileri yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, yüksek başarılı yetişkin bireylerin, potansiyellerini gerçekleştirmeleri için yöneticilerinden, öğretmenlerinden, ailelerinden ve çevrelerinden gerekli destek ve rehberlik hizmetlerini alamadıkları, aileleri ve toplum ile çatışmalar yaşadıkları ve eğitim sisteminin sınırlılıkları ile mücadele etmek durumunda kaldıkları belirlenmiştir. Eğitim sistem ve ortamlarının sınırlılıkları, rol model eksikliği, aile ve toplumla yaşadıkları sorunlara rağmen zorluklarla başa çıkıp başarılı olabildiklerini ifade etmişlerdir. Yüksek başarılı yetişkin bireyler, üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin daha nitelikli eğitim hizmetlerine ulaşabilmeleri için öğretmenlerin ve eğitim sisteminin diğer öğelerinin daha nitelikli hale getirilmesi, aile ve toplumun bilinçlendirilmesini önermektelerdir.

Keywords

• Üstün yetenekliler eğitimi
• yüksek başarılı yetişkin
• üstün yetenekli öğrenci
• eğitsel ihtiyaçlar
• üstün yeteneklilerin sorunları

Supporting Institution

Hacettepe Üniversitesi

Project Number

SAY-2015-5069

Thanks

Bu çalışma Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar Birimi "Üstün Yeteneklilere Yönelik İlkokul (1-4. sınıf) Öğretim Programı Geliştirme: Bir Eylem Araştırması" başlıklı Araştırma Altyapı Projesi kapsamında ortaya çıkan ürünlerden biridir.

References

1. Beljan, P., Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Web, N. E., Goerss, J., & Olenchak, F. R. (2006). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. Gifted and Talented International, 21(2), 83-86. doi: 10.1080/15332276.2006.11673478
2. Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today's schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 81-100. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681867
3. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
4. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: NY. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
5. Freeman, J. (2001). Giftedness, responsibility and schools. Gifted Education International, 15(2), 141-150. doi: 10.1177/026142940101500204
6. Freeman, J. (2006). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 384-403. doi: 10.4219/jeg-2006-246
7. Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Least restrictive environment and gifted students. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 153-165. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681871
8. Glass, T. F. (2004). What gift?: The reality of the student who is gifted and talented in public school classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 25-29. doi: 10.4219/gct-2004-152

9. Gomez-Arizaga, M. P., Conejeros-Solar, M. L., & Martin, A. (2016). How good is good enough? A community-based assessment of teacher competencies for gifted students. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1-14. doi: 10.1177/2158244016680687
10. Gottfried, A. W., Cook, C. R., Gottfried, A. E., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 172-186. doi: 10.1177/001698620504900206
11. Grobman, J. (2009). A psychodynamic psychotherapy approach to the emotional problems of exceptionally and profoundly gifted adolescents and adults: A psychiatrist's experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 106-125. doi: 10.1177/016235320903300105
12. Hastorf, A. H. (1997). Lewis Terman’s longitudinal study of the intellectually gifted: early research, recent investigations and the future, Gifted and Talented International, 12(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1080/15332276.1997.11672858
13. Heller, K. A. (2005). Education and counseling of the gifted and talented in Germany. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(2), 191-210. doi: 10.1007/s10447-005-3181-7
14. Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143. doi: 10.1177/001698620304700204
15. Hertzog, N. B., & Bennett, T. (2004). In whose eyes? Parents’ perspectives on the learning needs of their gifted children. Roeper Review, 26(2), 96-104. doi: 10.1080/02783190409554249
16. Hong, E., Greene, M., & Hartzell, S. (2011). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of elementary teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 250-264. doi: 10.1177/0016986211418107
17. Isaacs, A. F. (1961). Sources of motivation in creatively gifted adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5(2), 63-64. doi: 10.1177/001698626100500208
18. Koshy, V., Smith, C. P., & Casey, R. (2018). England policy in gifted education: Current problems and promising directions. Gifted Child Today, 41(2), 75-80. doi: 10.1177/1076217517750700
19. Kronborg, L. (2018). Gifted education in Australia and New Zealand. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of giftedness and talent (p. 85–96). American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0000038-006
20. Lapidot-Berman, J., & Oshrat, Z. (2009). Sibling relationships in families with gifted children. Gifted Education International, 25(1), 36-47. doi: 10.1177/026142940902500106
21. Lee, S., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel, P. (2010). Achievement after participation in a preparatory program for verbally talented students. Roeper Review, 32, 150-163. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2010.485301
22. Mirman, A. M. (1971). Two young gifted adults view the white house conference on youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(2), 91-92. doi: 10.1177/001698627101500207
23. Park, S., & Steve Oliver, J. (2009). The translation of teachers’ understanding of gifted students into instructional strategies for teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 333-351. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9138-7
24. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
25. Reid, E. (2015). Development of gifted education and an overview of gifted education in the USA, Canada, Equator and México. Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal, 4(2), 241-247. doi: 10.18355/PG.2015.4.2.241-247
26. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 233-235. doi: 10.1177/0016986209346824
27. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150-159. doi: 10.1177/0016986212444901
28. Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213-235. doi: 10.1177/0016986215600795
29. Rosemarin, S. (2014). Should the teacher of the gifted be gifted?. Gifted Education International, 30(3), 263-270. doi: 10.1177/0261429413486577
30. Rotigel, J. V. (2003). Understanding the young gifted child: Guidelines for parents, families, and educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(4), 209-214. doi: 10.1023/A:1023331422963
31. Sak, U., Ayas, M. B., Sezerel, B. B., Öpengin, E., Özdemir, N. N., ve Gürbüz, S. D. (2015). Gifted and Talented Education in Turkey: Critics and Prospects/Türkiye'de Üstün Yeteneklilerin Egitiminin Elestirel Bir Degerlendirmesi. Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 5(2), 110-132.
32. Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). The first word: a letter from the co-editors: Redefining giftedness. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 5-9.
33. 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. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056
34. Swanson, J. D. (1997, March). Principals' perspectives on factors which facilitate and block powerful learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
35. Sytsma, R. E. (2001). Changing states of matter: science, education, and giftedness in 21st century high schools. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 181-184. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2001-658
36. Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1), 1.
37. Tao, B. (1986). Parental involvement in gifted education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(3), 313-321.
38. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. (2012). Üstün yetenekli çocukların keşfi, eğitimleriyle ilgili sorunların tespiti ve ülkemizin gelişimine katkı sağlayacak etkin istihdamlarının sağlanması amacıyla kurulan meclis araştırma komisyonu raporu. Retrieved from https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2013_03/28093628_trkiyebykmilletmeclisiraporu.pdf
39. Umar, Ç. N., & Reis, Z. A. (2014). Karma öğrenme yöntemi ile farklılaştırılmış öğretim ortamının üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi. İZÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(5), 1-30.
40. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2013). Curriculum for the gifted: a commitment to excellence. Gifted Child Today, 36(3), 213-214. doi: 10.1177/1076217513487351
41. Weber, C. L., & Stanley, L. (2012). Educating parents of gifted children: Designing effective workshops for changing parent perceptions. Gifted Child Today, 35(2), 128-136. doi: 10.1177/1076217512437734
42. Willings, D. (1985). The gifted at university. Gifted Education International, 3(1), 24-31. doi: 10.1177/026142948500300105 Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
43. Young, M. H., & Balli, S. J. (2014). Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) student and parent perspectives. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 236-246. doi: 10.1177/1076217514544030