ÖZEL YETENEKLİ ÖĞRENCİLERİN DİJİTAL OKURYAZARLIK ve SİBERAYLAKLIK DÜZEYLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, Bilim Sanat Merkezinde (BİLSEM) eğitim gören özel yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerin dijital okuryazarlık ile siber aylaklık düzeylerinin ve bu iki değişken arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma ilişkisel tarama modeline uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını; Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde (BİLSEM) öğrenim gören ve bir veya daha fazla alanda özel yetenekli tanısı almış 179 ortaokul (5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf) öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Verilerin toplanmasında; kişisel bilgi formu, Ng tarafından (2012) geliştirilen ve Hamutoğlu, Canan Güngören, Kaya Uyanık ve Gür Erdoğan (2016) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlaması yapılan Dijital Okuryazarlık Ölçeği ile Blau, Yang ve Ward-Cook (2006) tarafından geliştirilen ve Polat (2018) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlaması yapılan Derslerde Akıllı Telefon Siber Aylaklık Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi SPSS 22 yazılımında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin dijital okuryazarlık ve siber aylaklık düzeylerinin anlaşılması için puan ortalamaları hesaplanmıştır. Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin dijital okuryazarlıkları ile siber aylaklıkları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi için Pearson korelasyon testi yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin dijital okuryazarlık puan ortalamalarının yüksek, siber aylaklık puan ortalamalarının düşük düzeyde olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Pearson korelasyon testi sonuçları, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin dijital okuryazarlıkları ile siber aylaklıkları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı ortaya koymaktadır (p>.05, r= .084). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin siber aylaklık düzeylerini etkileyecek farklı değişkenlerin araştırılması, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin siber aylaklıkları ile dijital okuryazarlıklarının farklı ve daha geniş örneklemlerde, farklı yaş gruplarında nitel çalışmalarla da destelenerek incelenmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• özel yetenekli öğrenci
• dijital okuryazarlık
• siber aylaklık

EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIGITAL LITERACY AND CYBERLOAFING LEVELS OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the levels of cyberloafing and digital literacy that are present among gifted secondary school students and to find the correlation between these two factors. The correlational screening model was used in this study. Participants were 179 secondary school (5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade) students enrolled in Science and Art Centers (SAC), who were identified as gifted in one or more fields. The participant information sheet, the Digital Literacy Scale and the Smartphone Cyberloafing Scale were used for the data collection. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22 software. The mean scores were determined in order to gain an understanding of the levels of cyberloafing and digital literacy as shown by gifted students. The Pearson correlation test was used to investigate the association between digital literacy levels and cyberloafing levels of gifted students. The results showed that gifted students have high levels of digital literacy and low levels of cyberloafing. Pearson’s correlation test results reveal that there was no significant relationship between gifted students' digital literacy levels and cyberloafing levels (p>.05, r= -.084). It is recommended to explore the factors influencing the cyberloafing levels of gifted students, as well as to analyze the cyberloafing and digital literacy of gifted students with different and larger samples, backed by qualitative studies in various age groups.

References

1. Akbulut, Y., Dursun, Ö. Ö., Dönmez, O., & Şahin, Y. L. (2016). In search of a measure to investigate cyberloafing in educational settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 616-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.002
2. Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O., & Dursun, Ö. Ö. (2017). Cyberloafing and social desirability bias among students and employees. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.043
3. Akgün, F. (2020). Investigation of high school students’ cyberloafing behaviors in classes. Egitim ve Bilim, 45(201), 79-108. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.8419
4. Akkanat, H. (2004). Üstün veya Özel Yetenekliler. M. Şirin., A. Kulaksızoğlu., & A. Bilgili (Ed.) Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı, (s.169-194). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları.
5. Alanoglu, M. & Karabatak, S. (2021). Examining of the smartphone cyberloafing in the class: Relationship with the attitude towards learning and prevention of cyberloafing. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(3), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.84
6. Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., Noel, T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee reactions to internet monitoring: The moderating role of ethical orientation. Journal Of Business Ethics, 80(3), 481-498.
7. Alyahya, S., & Alqahtani, A. (2022). Cyberloafing in Educational Settings: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(16).
8. Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., & Pallesen, S. (2014). Predictors of use of social network sites at work-a specific type of cyberloafing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 906-921. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12085

9. Arabaci, I. B. (2017). Investigation faculty of education students' cyberloafing behaviors in terms of various variables. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 16(1), 72-82.
10. Arslantas, T. K., Yaylacı, M. E., & Özkaya, M. (2023). Association between digital literacy, internet addiction, and cyberloafing among higher education students: A structural equation modeling. E-Learning and Digital Media, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530231156180
11. Aslan, R. (2020). Tarihten günümüze epidemiler, pandemiler ve covid-19. Ayrıntı Dergisi, 8(85), 36-41.
12. Ataman, A. (2004). Üstün Zekâlı ve Üstün Özel Yetenekli Çocuklar. M. Şirin., A. Kulaksızoğlu., & A. Bilgili (Ed.) Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı, (s.155-168). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları.
13. Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K. O. (2020a). Developing an Instructional Design for the Field of ICT and Software for Gifted and Talented Students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(1), 161-183. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.1.161
14. Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K. O. (2020b). Design thinking applications in teaching programming to gifted students. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 3(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.671621
15. Avcu, Y. E., & Ayverdi, L. Application of design thinking as a differentiation strategy for the education of gifted students: “City X”. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(4), 573-590. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1183220
16. Avcu, Y. E., & Yaman, Y. (2022). Effectiveness of the differentiated instructional design for value education of gifted: a mixed study. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 9(1), 1-23.
17. Ayverdi, L., & Öz Aydın, S. (2022). Özel yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerinin eğitiminde FeTeMM yaklaşımına dayalı bir öğretim tasarımının öğretim sürecine etkileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 254-273.
18. Ayverdi, L., Avcu, Y. E., Ülker, S., & Karakış, H. (2020). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinde aile katılımıyla gerçekleştirilen bir FeTeMM etkinliğinin uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi. Araştırma ve Deneyim Dergisi, 5(1), 24-36.
19. Awwad, F., Ayesh, A., & Awwad, S. (2013). Are laptops distracting educational tools in classrooms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.320
20. Bağrıaçık Yılmaz, A. (2017). Investigation of cyberloafing levels of graduate students in terms of various variables: A mixed method study. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 18(2), 113-134.
21. Baturay, M. H., & Toker, S. (2015). An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 358-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.081
22. Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007083
23. Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus of control. Computers In Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067-1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.008
24. Bozok, Z., Geniş, E., & Avcu, Y. E. (2020). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerde bilişim etiği öğretimine yönelik bir dijital oyun geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6(1), 36-54.
25. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (18. Basım). Pegem Akademi.
26. Bayra, E. (2019). Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Üst Düzey Düşünme Becerileri, Teknoloji ve Tasarıma Yönelik Eğitim Teknolojileri Öz Yeterlikleri. Dokora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi.
27. Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358-376 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322
28. Çevik, M. (2021). The effect of digital activities on the technology awareness and computational thinking skills of gifted students (eTwinning project example). International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 5(1), 205-244.
29. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (Sixth Edition). Pearson Education Limited.
30. Dereli, N., & İzmirli, Ö. Ş. (2022). Research on the cyberloafing levels of middle school students. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(4), 825-849. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1146420
31. Dmour, M. M. (2021) Exploring The Antecedents And Situational Conditions Affecting Cyberloafing Behavior Among College Students: A Grounded Theory Approach. Internatıonal Journal Of Scıentıfıc & Technology Research. 10(6),226-237.
32. Fu, E., Gao, Q., Wei, C., Chen, Q., & Liu, Y. (2021). Understanding student simultaneous smartphone use in learning settings: A conceptual framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12471
33. Gerow, J. E., Galluch, P. S., & Thatchar, J. B. (2010). To slack or not to slack: Internet usage in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(3), 5-23.
34. Greengard, S. (2000). The high cost of cyberslacking. Workforce, 79(12), 22-24.
35. Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades K-12. Free Spirit Publishing.
36. Housand, A. M., Housand, B. C., & Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Using the schoolwide enrichment model with technology. Routledge.
37. Jimoyiannis, A., & Gravani, M. (2011). Exploring adult digital literacy using learners' and educators' perceptions and experiences: The case of the second chance schools in Greece. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 217-227.
38. Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004
39. Jimoyiannis, A. & Gravani, M. (2011). Exploring adult digital literacy using learners’ and educators’ perceptions and experiences: The Case of the Second Chance Schools in Greece. Journal of Educational Technology ve Society, 14(1), 217-227
40. Jin, K. Y., Reichert, F., Cagasan Jr, L. P., de la Torre, J., & Law, N. (2020). Measuring digital literacy across three age cohorts: Exploring test dimensionality and performance differences. Computers & Education, 157, 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103968
41. Kalaycı, E. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin siber aylaklık davranışları ile öz düzenleme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
42. Kaplan Sayı, A., & Soysal, Ö. M. (2022). Digital differentiation in gifted Education. In J. L. Nyberg & J. A. Manzone (Eds.), Creating equitable services for the gifted: protocols for identification, implementation, and evaluation (pp. 205-225). IGI Global.
43. Kara, N., Geçer, E., & Sahin, Ç. (2020). Social media habits through a new media literacy perspective: a case of gifted students. Online Submission, 6(3), 191-208. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajmmc.6-3-4
44. Kerchner, C. T. (2013). “Technology Policy for a 21st Century Learning System”. Policy Bief, 13(3), 1-15.
45. Koay, K. Y., & Poon, W. C. (2022). Understanding Students’ Cyberslacking Behaviour in e-Learning Environments: Is Student Engagement the Key?. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2080154
46. Köroğlu, İ. Ş. (2015). Üstün Yetenekli Dijital Yerlilerin Sosyal Medya Kullanımları Üzerine Nicel Bir Çalışma. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 40, 266-290.
47. Kurnaz, A., Yurt, E., & Çiftci, Ü. (2014). An investigation into the views of gifted children on the effects of computer and information technologies on their lives and education. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business Engineering, 8(6), 2025-2030.
48. Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education classrooms: The laptop effectiveness scale (LES). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1087
49. Lafcı-Tor, D., Demir Başaran, S. & Arık, E. (2022). Öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 2027-2064.
50. Lenhart, A. (2015), “Teens, social media & technology overview 2015”. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. Li, M., & Yu, Z. (2022). Teachers’ Satisfaction, Role, and Digital Literacy during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 14(3), 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031121
51. Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(5), 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.161
52. Lim, V. K., & Chen, D. J. (2012). Cyberloafing at the workplace: gain or drain on work?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(4), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290903353054
53. Mann, C. (1994). New technologies and gifted education. Roeper Review, 16(3), 172-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553567
54. Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the digital society. In C. Lankshear and M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 151-177). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
55. McBride, J., Milligan, J., & Nichols, J. (2013). "Cyberslacking" in the classroom: the reactions of classroom teachers. College Student Journal, 47(1), 212-218.
56. McKoy, S., & Merry, K. E. (2023). Engaging Advanced Learners with Differentiated Online Learning. Gifted Child Today, 46(1), 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221131068
57. MEB. (2016). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Yönergesi. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Erişim tarihi: 12.05.2021, https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_10/07031350_bilsem_yonergesi.pdf
58. Mercado, B. K., Giordano, C. & Dilchert, S. (2017). A meta-analytic investigation of cyberloafing. Career Development International, 22(5), 546–564. doi:10.1108/CDI-08-2017-0142. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2017-0142
59. Mihelič, K. K., Lim, V. K. G., & Culiberg, B. (2023). Cyberloafing among Gen Z students: the role of norms, moral disengagement, multitasking self-efficacy, and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(2), 567-585.
60. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2012). Etkili öğretim tasarımı (Çev. İlhan Varank ve diğerleri). Bahçeşehir Yayınları.
61. Nacaroğlu, O. (2020). Özel Yetenekli ve Normal Gelişim Gösteren Öğrencilerin 21. Yüzyıl Becerilerinin İncelenmesi. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 53(2), 693-722. DOI: 10.30964/auebfd.615067 https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.615067
62. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
63. Olivia, P. F., & Gordon, W. R. (2018). Program geliştirme (K. Gündoğdu Çev. Ed.). Pegema Yayıncılık. Öngöz, S., & Sözel, H. K. (2018). Üstün Yeteneklilerin Eğitiminde Teknoloji Kullanımı. Hatice Ferhan Odabaşı (Editör). Özel Eğitim ve Eğitim Teknolojisi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, ss.91-114. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786052411773
64. Örücü, E., & Yıldız, H. (2014). İşyerinde kişisel internet ve teknoloji kullanımı: Sanal kaytarma. Ege Akademik Bakış, 14(1), 99-114. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12462/4227
65. Öz, A. Ş. (2020). Program geliştirme ve bireysel farklılıklar. H. G. Berkant (Edt.). Eğitimde program geliştirme, kuramdan uygulama örneklerine içinde (ss.71-90). Anı Yayıncılık.
66. Özdemir, C., Yıldız, A., and Şahan, S. (2021). Cyberloafing Behaviors of Health Professional Students During Distance Education in the COVID-19 Pandemic Period. JHE (Journal of Health Education), 6(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.15294/jhe.v6i1.45307
67. Page, D. (2015). Teachers’ personal web use at work. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(5), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.928744
68. Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601
69. Phelps, V. (2022). Successful online learning with gifted students: Designing online and blended lessons for gifted and advanced learners in grades 5–8. Routledge.
70. Pielot, M., Dingler, T., Pedro, J. S., & Oliver, N. (2015, September). When attention is not scarce-detecting boredom from mobile phone usage. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 825-836). https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804252
71. Polat, M. (2018). Derslerde akıllı telefon siber aylaklığı ölçeği (DATSAÖ): Üniversite öğrencileri için bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal), 4(21), 3114-3127.
72. Poon, W. C., Lee, C. K. C., & Ong, T. P. (2012). Undergraduates’ perception on causes, coping and outcomes of academic stress: Its foresight implications to university administration. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 8(4), 379-403. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2012.049809
73. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants (Dijital Yerliler, Dijital Göçmenler). On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
74. Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self‐concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716
75. Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education, 78, 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.002
76. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted child quarterly, 51(4), 382-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
77. Sasaki, R., Goff, W., Dowsett, A., Parossien, D., Matthies, J., Di Iorio, C., ... & Puddy, G. (2020). The practicum experience during covid-19--supporting initial teacher education student's practicum experience through a simulated classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 329-339. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1257190 adresinden erişilmiştir.
78. Seçkin, Z., & Kerse, G. (2017). Cyberloafing Behaviors of University Students and Investigation of These Behaviors in Terms of Various Variables: An Empirical Research. Aksaray University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 9(1), 89-110.
79. Sheikh, A., Atashgah, M. S., & Adibzadegan, M. (2015). The antecedents of cyberloafing: A case study in an Iranian copper industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 172-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.042
80. Shavinina, L. V. (2009). High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies for the gifted. In International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1181-1202). Springer.
81. Sheffield, C. C. (2007). Technology and the gifted adolescent: Higher order thinking, 21st century literacy, and the digital native. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 10(2), 1-5.
82. Siegle, D. (2005). Using media & technology with gifted students. Prufrock Press Inc.
83. Siegle, D. (2017). Technology: The dark side of using technology. Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517723678
84. Siegle, D. (2023). Turning Lemons Into Lemonade: Technology Teaching Tips Learned During COVID-19. Gifted Child Today, 46(1), 60-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221131066
85. Siegle, D., & Hook, T. S. (2023). Learning from and learning with technology. In J. VanTassel-Baska and C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for advanced learners (4th ed., pp. 595-618). Routledge.
86. Sipior, J. C., & Ward, B. T. (2002). A strategic response to the broad spectrum of Internet abuse. Information Systems Management, 19(4), 71-79.
87. Susan, K. J., Dailey, D., & Cotabish, A. (Eds.). (2022). NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards: A Guide to Planning and Implementing Quality Services for Gifted Students. Routledge.
88. Şenel, S., Günaydın, S., Sarıtaş, M. T., & Çiğdem, H. (2019). Üniversite öğrencilerinin siber aylaklık seviyelerini yordayan faktörler. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2376
89. Tomlinson, C.A. (2017). How to differentiate ınstruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd edition). ASCD.
90. Tüzel, S. & Tok, M. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının dijital yazma deneyimlerinin incelenmesi. Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD), 6(15), 577-596.
91. Ugrin, J. C., Pearson, J. M., & Odom, M. D. (2008). Profiling cyber-slackers in the workplace: Demographic, cultural, and workplace factors. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6(3), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J179v06n03_04
92. Vanslyke, T. (2003). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Some Thoughts from the Generation Gap" The Technology Source Archives Available online at http://technologysource.org/article/digital_natives_digital_immigrants/
93. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted child quarterly, 51(4), 342-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323
94. Varol, F., & Yildirim, E. (2018). An examination of cyberloafing behaviors in classrooms from students’ perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.349800
95. Vitak, J., Crouse, J., & LaRose, R. (2011). Personal Internet use at work: Understanding cyberslacking. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1751-1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.002
96. Wolfgang, C., & Snyderman, D. (2022). An analysis of the impact of school closings on gifted services: Recommendations for meeting gifted students’ needs in a post-COVID-19 world. Gifted Education International, 38(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211054262
97. Yaşar, S., & Yurdugül, H. (2013). The investigation of relation between cyberloafing activities and cyberloafing behaviors in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 600-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.114
98. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Basım). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
99. Yılmaz, F. G. K., Yılmaz, R., Öztürk, H. T., Sezer, B., & Karademir, T. (2015). Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.023
100. Yılmaz, R., & Yurdugül, H. (2018). Cyberloafing in IT classrooms: Exploring the role of the psycho-social environment in the classroom, attitude to computers and computing courses, motivation and learning strategies. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 530-552.
101. Yildiz Durak, H., Demirhan, E. K., & Citil, M. (2022). Examining various risk factors as the predictors of gifted and non-gifted high school students’ online game addiction. Computers & Education, 177, 104378.
102. Yiğitoğlu, O., & Erişen, Y. (2021). Ters yüz öğrenme yaklaşımı. A.S. Saraçoğlu, B. Akkoyunlu, İ. Gökdaş (Eds). Öğretimde yaklaşımlar ve eğitime yansımaları içinde (ss.434-463). Pegem Akademi.
103. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. (2012). Reconsidering the boundaries of the cyberloafing activity: the case of a university. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.549511