BİLSEM Öğretmenlerinin Görüşlerine Göre Türkiye’deki Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilere Yönelik Eğitim Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye’de alanda görev yapmakta olan Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi (BİLSEM) öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine başvurularak ülkemizde özel yeteneklilerin eğitim kalitesinin geliştirilmesi için neler yapılabileceği sorusunun cevabını belirlemektir. Bu çalışmada, nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu; 2022-2023 eğitim öğretim yılında Konya merkez ilçelerinde bulunan Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde alanda görev yapmakta olan 30 öğretmenler oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada görüşlerine başvurulan öğretmenlerin belirlenmesinde amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden biri olan tipik durum örneklem modeli kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Toplanan veriler içerik analizine uygun olacak şekilde çözümlenmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda, BİLSEM'lerde fiziksel donanım eksiklikleri, öğretmen yeterlilikleri, bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim süreçleri ve hizmet içi eğitimlerin yetersizliği, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin gelişimini olumsuz etkileyen temel faktörler olup, bu sorunların çözülmesi için öğretmenlerin sistematik ve uygulamaya dayalı mesleki gelişim programlarına katılımı, öğrenci merkezli öğretim yaklaşımlarının benimsenmesi ve fiziksel koşulların iyileştirilmesi gerektiği sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen sonuçlar ile alanyazında var olan sonuçların yüksek oranda örtüştüğü görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Eğitim Uygulamaları
• Özel Yetenekliler
• Özel Yeteneklilerin Eğitimi

Evaluation of Education Practices for Gifted Students in Turkey according to the Opinions of BİLSEM Teachers

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the answer to the question of what can be done to improve the quality of education of gifted students in Turkey by referring to the opinions of Science and Art Centre (BİLSEM) teachers working in the field in Turkey. In this study, semi-structured interview method, one of the qualitative research approaches, was used. The study group of the research consists of 30 teachers working in Science and Art Centres in the central districts of Konya in the 2022-2023 academic year. Typical case sampling model, one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used to determine the teachers whose opinions were consulted in the study. A semi-structured interview form was used as a data collection tool. The collected data were analysed in accordance with content analysis. As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that physical equipment deficiencies, teacher competencies, individualised education processes and inadequacy of in-service trainings are the main factors that negatively affect the development of gifted students in BİLSEMs and that teachers should participate in systematic and practice-based professional development programmes, adopt student-centred teaching approaches and improve physical conditions in order to solve these problems. It was observed that the results obtained in the study overlapped with the results in the literature.

Keywords

• Educational Policies
• Gifted
• Gifted Education
• BİLSEM

References

1. Akın, G. (2019). The effectiveness of Science and Art Centers (BİLSEM) in the education of gifted students (Master’s thesis, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University). YÖK National Thesis Database.
2. Altun, T., & Vural, S. (2012). Evaluation of the views of BİLSEM teachers and administrators regarding professional development and school improvement. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(42), 152–177.
3. Arastaman, G., Öztürk Fidan, İ., & Fidan, T. (2018). Validity and reliability in qualitative research: A theoretical analysis. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Faculty of Education, 15(1), 37–75. https://doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.61
4. Atlı, H., & Balay, R. (2016). Students’ views on the sustainability of gifted education at Science and Art Centers (BİLSEM). Kırşehir Education Faculty Journal, 17(2), 191–205.
5. Bilgiç, N. (2017). A qualitative study on policies for the education of highly gifted and talented individuals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Department of Special Education.
6. Calero, M., Belen, G., & Robles, M. (2011). Learning potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.025
7. Choe, H. (2016). Critical reflection on teacher training programs in Korean gifted education. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 6(1), 35–43.
8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Edam.
10. Cross, T. (2011). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children. Prufrock Press.
11. Çitil, M. (2018). Evaluation of educational policies for gifted individuals in Turkey. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 47(220), 143–172.
12. Çitil, M., & Sak, U. (2020). Special education services for gifted individuals in Turkey. In U. Sak & S. Toraman (Eds.), Special education services in Turkey (pp. 113–129). Afşar Offset.
13. Dağlıoğlu, H. E. (2010). Teacher qualifications and characteristics in gifted education. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 40(186), 72–84.
14. Demirel, Ö. (1999). Planning and evaluation in instruction: The art of teaching. Pegem Publishing.
15. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
16. DPT. (1996). Seventh Five-Year Development Plan (1996–2000). State Planning Organization. (Retrieved from http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/plan4.pdf)
17. Ehlers, K., & Montgomery, D. (1999). Rural special education for the new millennium. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Teachers’ perceptions of curriculum modification for students who are gifted (pp. 95–106). University of New Mexico: ACRES.
18. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
19. Işık, A., & Güneş, E. (2017). The education history of gifted individuals in Turkey: The Ottoman Enderun School. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 4(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.29228/ijlet.46175
20. Karakuş, F. (2010). Challenges faced by parents of gifted children. Mersin University Journal of Education Faculty, 6(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.89448
21. Karnes, M., & Whorten, J. (1996). Teacher certification and endorsement in gifted education: A critical need. Roeper Review, 19, 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553788
22. Keskin, M., Samancı Keskin, N., & Aydın, S. (2013). Science and Art Centers: Their current status, problems, and recommendations. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(2), 78–96.
23. Koç, İ. (2016). Parents’ perceptions of gifted and talented students and BİLSEM: A BİLSEM case. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 3(3), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020.-437990
24. Kontaş, H., & Yağcı, E. (2016). The effectiveness of a developed program meeting BİLSEM teachers’ curriculum development needs. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 16(3), 902–923.
25. Köksal, M. S. (2021). Science and Art Centers. In M. S. Köksal & M. R. Barın (Eds.), Giftedness and BİLSEM (pp. 165–187). MEB Directorate General of Special Education and Guidance Services.
26. Kuo, C., Marker, J., Su, F., & Hu, C. (2010). Identifying young gifted children and cultivating problem solving abilities and multiple intelligences. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.05.005
27. Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Stan Lester Developments.
28. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2010). Strategy and implementation plan for gifted individuals.
29. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). 2023 Education Vision Document (23 October).
30. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2021). Directive on Science and Art Centers of the Ministry of Education.
31. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2022). Guide for teacher selection and assignment to Science and Art Centers.
32. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2023). Formal Education Statistics 2022/2023. Ministry of Education.
33. Nevo, B., & Rachmel, S. (2009). Education of gifted children: A general roadmap and the case of Israel. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 243–251). Springer.
34. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316.
35. Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. (2022). 2022 Guide for teacher selection and appointment to Science and Art Centers.
36. Öznacar, M. (2011). South Korea study and investigation visit report, 15–22 May 2011. Adana BİLSEM.
37. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10144
38. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821
39. Saldana, J. (2022). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (A. Tüfekçi & S. Şad, Trans.). Pegem.
40. Sarı, H., & Öğülmüş, K. (2014). Evaluation of problems encountered at BİLSEM from the perspectives of teachers and students. International Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 254–265.
41. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
42. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
43. Summak, M., & Çelik Şahin, Ç. (2014). Examination of opinions on the establishment of standards in Turkish Science and Art Centers. Asia Journal of Teacher Education, 2(1), 1–15.
44. Şahin, E. (2005). A practical guide for preschool teacher candidates and teachers. Anı Publishing.
45. Şahin, F. (2015). Educational programs, services, and support for gifted students in Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(4), 1207–1223.
46. Şahin, F. (2020). Education of gifted individuals in Turkey: A discussion in the context of policy documents and laws. Yeni Türkiye, (115).
47. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
48. Tomlinson, C., & Eidson, C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. ASCD.
49. Tomlinson, C., & Strickland, C. (2005). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum (2nd ed.). ASCD.
50. Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Dobyns, S., & Salvin, T. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329301600204
51. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (7th ed.). Seçkin Publishing.