An Investigation into Teaching English to Gifted Individuals: Giving Voice to Turkish EFL Teachers

Year 2023, , 313 - 328, 30.08.2023

Devrim Hol , Feride Acar

https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1341104

Abstract

Foreign language learning process of gifted individuals plays a critical role in both their self-development and academic life. However, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers may encounter various challenges while teaching to gifted individuals. The purpose of the present research is to reveal the opinions of EFL teachers in Science and Art Centers (SACs) on the challenges they encounter in teaching English, find out possible sources for these difficulties, and their solutions and recommendations. In total, 21 EFL teachers working in different SACs in Turkiye participated in the study. The data were collected through a semi-structured interview based on three main themes: a) the challenges the participants have faced, b) the participants’ views on the source of these problems, and c) their suggested strategies to cope with the mentioned challenges. Content analysis was carried out to analyze the data. The qualitative findings demonstrated that the EFL teachers experienced similar challenges including the lack of an established curriculum, insufficient educational technological equipments and appropriate materials for language teaching, having students with different levels of English proficiency in the same groups, and having long working hours.

Keywords

science and art centre, gifted individuals, giftedness, English as a foreign language (EFL), Turkish EFL teachers

References

• Ağaya, A., & Sema, T. A. N. (2023). Comparative analysis of gifted centers. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1149390
• Akdağ, M., & Şenol, C. (2018). The case of being a teacher at science and art centres: A phenomenological quantitative research. Journal of Education and Future, 14, 131-148. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.364281
• Aguirre, N. M., & Hernandez, N. E. (2021). Differentiating the curriculum for gifted second language learners: Teaching them to think. In Castellano, J.A. & Frazier, A.D. (Eds.), Special Populations in Gifted Education (pp. 273-285). Routledge.
• Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., & Whiteman, C. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2), 102–115. doi:10.1177/0016986209355974
• Bain, S. K., McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., Cochran, J. L., & Sawyer, S. C. (2010). Foreign language learning aptitudes, attitudes, attributions, and achievement of postsecondary students identified as gifted. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 130-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002200106
• Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). Cambridge University Press.
• Cramond, B. (2004) Can we, should we, need we agree on a definition of giftedness? Roeper Review, 27(1), 15-16. doi: 10.1080/02783190409554282
• Çetin, A., & Doğan, A. (2018). Problems that mathematics teachers encounter in science and art centres. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 615-641. doi: 10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.370355
• Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306320 Dinçer, S. (2019). Investigation of the gifted education self-efficacy of teachers work with gifted students. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(3), 167-174.
• Dube, S. (2020). Writing open-ended and closed-ended questions for user research. Retrieved on 14 December, 2020 from https://www.invespcro.com/blog/writing-open-ended-and-closed-ended-questions-for-user-research.
• Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 4(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2158244014522633
• Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324(7337), 573-577. https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.324.7337.573
• Folsom, C. (2005). Exploring a new pedagogy: Teaching for intellectual and emotional learning (TIEL). Issues in Teacher Education 14(2): 75–94. http://caddogap.com/periodi cals.shtml
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Godor, P. B. (2019). Gifted metaphors: Exploring the metaphors of teachers in gifted education and their impact on teaching the gifted. Roeper Review 41(1), 51-60. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2018.1553219
• Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
• Holsti, O. R. (1968). Content analyses. In In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 596-692). New Delhi: Amerind Publishing Co.
• Karaduman, B. K., & Ceviz, A. E. (2018). Science and arts centre teachers’ problems on educational process and student orientation. Journal of Continuous Vocational Education and Training, 1(1), 1-17. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jcvet/issue/42201/497391.
• Mack, N., Woodsong, C., Macqueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. The USA: Family Health International.
• Maker, C. J., & Pease, R. (2021). Building on and extending the characteristics of gifted learners: Implementing the Real Engagement in Active Prrblem Solving (REAPS) teaching model. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 30(2), 5-25.
• Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. In Report to the Congress of the United States by the Commissioner of Education (pp. 72-502). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. https://www.valdosta.edu/colleges/education/human-services/document%20/marland-report.pdf.
• McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144-154.
• MoNE, (2006). Special education services regulation. Ankara: National Education Printing House.
• Miles M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
• Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10-17.10. https://d oi.org/1 080/02783199909553991
• Ninkov, I. (2020). Education policies for gifted children within a human rights paradigm: A comparative analysis. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 5(4), 280–289. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s41134-020-00133-1
• Okan, Z., & Işpınar, D. (2009). Gifted students’ perceptions of learning English as a foreign language. Educational Research and Review, 4(4), 117-126. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ888211
• Ömeroğlu, E., Sarıkaya, R., Dağlıoğlu, E., Çakmak, E. K., Karataş, S., Bulut, A. S., Şahin, M. G., Sabancı, O., Kukul, V., Doğan, A. T., & Basıt, O. (2017). The terms used in gifted and talented education in Turkey. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 9(1), 1-16. doi: 10.20489/intjecse.329697
• Palmsquit, M. (2012). Content analysis. Retrieved on 14th November, 2020, from https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/contentanalysis. Passet, M. (2015). Giftedness and language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leiden, Netherlands.
• Pfeiffer, S. I., & Blei, S. (2008). Gifted identification beyond the IQ test: Rating scales and other assessment procedures. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 177–198). Springer.
• Pfeiffer, S. I., & Stocking, V. B. (2000). Vulnerabilities of academically gifted students. Special Services in the Schools, 16(1-2), 83-93.
• Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the past presage modern scholarship. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 13–31). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_2
• 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, NY: Springer.
• Shaughnessy, M. F., & Sak, U. (2015). A reflective conversation with Ugur Sak: Gifted education in Turkey. Gifted Education International, 31(1), 54–62. doi: 10.1177/0261429413510639
• Sheppard, V. (2020). Research methods for the social sciences: An introduction. Vancouver: BCCampus. Şahin, F. (2016). Issues of identification of giftedness in Turkey. Gifted and Talented International, 28(1-2), 207-218. doi: 10.1080/15332276.2013.11678415
• Tailor, G. R. (2005). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in research (second ed.). Maryland: University Press of America.
• Törün, F., Mentiş Köksoy, A. (2023). Perspectives of Science and Art Center (BİLSEM) Teachers and Students on Distance Education: The Example of İzmir Province. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 35, 302-345. doi: 10.14689/enad.35.1743
• VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted-student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600104.
• Worrell F. C., Subotnik R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 551-576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846
• Yıldırım, R., & Akçayoğlu, D. I. (2013). Strategy-based English language instruction: The impact on the language proficiency of young gifted learners. Education, 43(2), 97-114. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2012.759606