Ideal Scıence Teacher From Perspective Of Gifted Students: Phenomenologıcial Study

Abstract

The goal of this study is to determine the qualifications of an ideal science teacher from the perspectives of gifted secondary school students. In this study, phenomenological design from qualitative research methods was used in line with the purpose of the study. The study group consisted of 35 gifted students receiving education at Hatay Science and Arts Centre. Data were gathered by using semi-structured interview form in the study which was carried out based on voluntariness. The data obtained from the study were analysed by descriptive analysis which is one of the qualitative data analysis methods. Percentage and frequency values were used to analyse the data, and direct quotations were included. The gifted students generally emphasized the personal and educational dimensions of an ideal science teacher as a result of the analysis of the data. While an ideal science teacher was expected to be fair, humorous and funny; it was emphasized in the dimension of professional development that s/he should be well-educated and creative. While it was wanted in the educational dimension that an ideal science teacher should address with name and behave sincerely, being funny, allowing his/her students to conduct experiments and teaching by games were detected as the qualifications expected from an ideal science teacher in the learning and teaching process.

Keywords

• Gifted
• İdeal Teacher
• Science

References

1. Abel, T. & Karnes, F. A. (1994). Teacher preferences among the lower socioeconomic rural and suburban advantaged gifted students. Roeper Review, 17(1), 52-53.
2. Cheung, H. Y., & Phillipson, S. N. (2008). Teachers of Gifted Students in Hong Kong: Competencies and Characteristics. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(2).
3. Copenhaver, R. W. & Mc Intyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers’ perception of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 151-153.
4. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (3. Baskıdan Çeviri).(Çeviri Editörleri: M. Bütün ve S.B.Demir). Ankara: Siyasal Yayın Dağıtım.
5. Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (1992). Gifted High School Students' Advice to Science Teachers. Gifted Child Today (GCT), 15(5), 25-26.
6. Çelikdelen, Hatice (2010); “Bilim Sanat Merkezlerinde Bilim Birimlerinden Destek Alan Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Kendi Okullarında Fen ve Teknoloji Dersinde Karsılaştıkları Güçlüklerin Değerlendirilmesi”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Eğitim Anabilim Dalı, Konya.
7. Darga, H. (2010). “Brigance K&1 Screen II İle İlköğretim 1. Sınıfta Saptanan Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklara ve Sınıf Arkadaşlarına Uygulanan Zenginleştirme Programının Çoklu Zekâ Alanlarındaki Performans Düzeylerini Arttırmaya Etkisi”,Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Çocuk Gelişimi ve Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.
8. Dağlıoğlu, H. E. (2010). Üstün Yetenekli Çocukların Eğitiminde Öğretmen Yeterlikleri Ve Özellikleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 40(186), 72-84.

9. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Press.
10. Delisle, J. (2006). Parenting Gifted Kids: Tips for Raising Happy and Successful Children. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
11. Duneland Schools (1986). Gifted Education Handbook. Chesterton. Indiana
12. Friedman, Y. & Krongold, N. (1993). Interaction between Teachers and Students: the Student’s Perspective. Jerusalem: Szold Institute. (In Hebrew)
13. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). Off campus training of teachers of the gifted: A program model. Gifted international, 6(1), 54-62.
14. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-121.
15. Hativa, N. (2003). Teaching Processes in Class. Tel Aviv: Academic Publishers for the Promotion of Teaching Staff. (In Hebrew)
16. Hızlı, E. (2014). Examining of Gifted and Talented Education: Israeli Education. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 2(2), 52-62.
17. Khalil, M., & Accariya, Z. (2016). Identifying “good” teachers for gifted students. Creative Education, 7(3), 407-418.
18. Landvogt, J. (2001). Affecting eternity: Teaching for talent development. Roeper Review, 23(4), 190-196.
19. Leikin, R. (2011). Teaching the Mathematically Gifted: Featuring a Teacher. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11, 78-89
20. Levent, F. (2013). Üstün yetenekli çocukları anlamak: Üstün yetenekli çocuklar sarmalında aile, eğitim sistemi ve toplum. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
21. MEB (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlilikleri. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlik-meslegi-genel-yeterlikleri/icerik/486
22. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Baskıdan Çeviri, Çeviri Editörü: S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
23. Milgram, R. M. (1979). Perception of teacher behavior in gifted and nongifted children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 125.
24. Miligram, R. M. (2000). Identifying and Enhancing Talent in Israel: A High National Priority. Roeper Review.
25. Milgram, R., & Hong, E. (2009). Talent Loss in Mathematics: Causes and Solutions. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, and B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students (pp. 149-163). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers
26. Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 272-281.
27. Parke, Beverly, N. (1992). “Challenging Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom.” (ERIC Digest #E513). ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children Reston, Va. ED352774.
28. Robinson, A., Shore, B.M & Enersen, D.L. (2014). Üstün Zekalılar Eğitiminde En İyi Uygulamalar: Kanıt Temelli Bir Kılavuz (Çeviri Editörleri: Ü. Ogurlu, F.Kaya) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık
29. Tischler, K., & Vialle, W. J. (2009). Gifted students' perceptions of the characteristics of effective teachers. URL -1. (2016). Öğretim programları arka plan raporu. Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2015-2016.
30. Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 3(8).
31. Ziv, Y., & Sorongon, A. (2011). Social Information Processing in Preschool Children: Relations to Sociodemographic Risk and Problem Behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 412-429.
32. Vialle, W. & Quigley, S. (2002). Does the teacher of the gifted need to be gifted? Gifted and Talented International, 17 (2), 85-90.
33. Woods, J. W. (2004). The characteristics of successful and effective teachers of the gifted.
34. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.