The Case of Being a Teacher at Science and Art Centers: A Phenomenological Quantitative Research

Abstract

The aim of the research is to examine "the case of being a teacher in Science and Art Centers". 13 teachers selected from Science and Art Centers in three different cities in the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey in the 2015-2016 academic year constitute the study group of this research designed a phenomenological research design of Qualitative research approach. In the selection of the study group the criterion sampling method, one of purposive sampling method use in in phenomenological studies, was used. Semi-structured interview form was used to collect the data. The preliminary application of the interview form was carried out with three teachers working in Science and Art Centers. Necessary adjustments were made to the interview form in accordance with preliminary application results and expert opinions. Interviews were made with teachers in the study group. Content analysis method was used in analysis of research data. In this study, it was concluded that teachers find the system in 2007 (old system) better in general in terms of the evaluation criteria and validity of the selection of teachers for Science and Art Centers, and they cannot adopt the system in 2015 (new system) because it contains subjective evaluation criteria. Teachers are adopting learning approaches based on learning by doing-experiencing, project-based learning, trip-observation, active learning and problem based learning while doing instructional activities. It has been seen that teachers are positive in terms of being teachers in Science and Art Centers, providing personal/professional development and occupational satisfaction, enhancing learning-teaching motivation, being prestigious and having a free learning-teaching environment. It has been seen that teachers are negative in terms of being teachers in Science and Art Centers because of long working hours and cannot complete enough additional tuition fees. It was also concluded that teachers communicate with students effectively, while their communication with parents is inadequate. In line with the research results, the following suggestions can be made: the selection of teachers to the Science and Art Centers should be done objectively, work should be done for strengthening the teachers the interaction and co-operation with parents.

 

 

 

Öz: Araştırmanın amacı “Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde öğretmen olma” olgusunu incelemektir. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından fenomenolojik desende tasarlanan araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 2015-2016 eğitim-öğretim yılında Türkiye’nin Doğu Anadolu Bölgesindeki üç farklı şehrinde bulunan Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinden seçilen 13 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma grubunun seçiminde, fenomenolojik araştırmalarda kullanılan amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden biri olan ölçüt örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Verileri toplamak amacıyla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Görüşme formunun ön uygu­laması Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde görev yapan üç öğretmen ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Görüşme formunda, ön uygulama sonuçları ve uzman kişilerin görüşleri doğrultusunda gerekli düzenlemeler yapılmıştır. Çalışma grubundaki öğretmenlerle derinlemesine mülakatlarda bulunulmuştur. Araştırma verileri, içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada öğretmenlerin Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerine öğretmen seçimine ilişkin 2007’deki sistemi değerlendirme kriterleri ve geçerliliği itibariyle daha iyi buldukları, 2015’deki sistemi ise subjektif değerlendirme kriterleri içermesi nedeniyle benimseyemedikleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Öğretmenlerin, yaparak yaşayarak öğrenme, proje temelli öğrenme, gezi-gözlem, aktif öğrenme ve probleme dayalı öğrenme kapsamında öğretimsel faaliyetlerini gerçekleştirdikleri belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenlerin, Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde öğretmen olmayı, kişisel/mesleki gelişime ve mesleki doyuma katkı sağlaması, öğrenme-öğretme motivasyonunu artırması, prestijli olması, özgür öğrenme-öğretme ortamının bulunması yönleriyle olumlu olarak nitelendirdikleri görülmüştür. Öğretmenler, mesainin uzun olmasını, ek derslerin tamamlanamamasını Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde öğretmen olmanın olumsuz yönleri olarak nitelendirdikleri görülmüştür. Ayrıca öğretmenlerin öğrencilerle etkili iletişim içerisinde oldukları, velilerle kurulan iletişimlerinin ise yetersiz olduğu sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları doğrultusunda Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerine öğretmen seçimi, objektif olarak yapılmalıdır, öğretmenlerin velilerle olan işbirliğini ve etkileşimini güçlendirecek çalışmalar yapılmalıdır gibi önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

 

Keywords

• Science and Art Centers,teachers of gifted and talented,gifted education,phenomenology

References

1. Aktepe, V. & Aktepe, L. (2009). Teaching method using science and technology education on students’ aspects: The example of Kırşehir BİLSEM. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 10 (1), 69-80.
2. Ataman, A. (1976). Educational problems of gifted students a research in Ankara science high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ankara, Faculty of Education, Ankara.
3. Ataman, A. (1998). Gifted and Talented. Anadolu University, Open University Press.
4. Bain, S. K., Choate, S. M. & Bliss, S. L. (2006). Perceptions of developmental, social, and emotional issues in giftedness: Are they realistic? Roeper Review, 29, 41-48.
5. Baş, T. & Akturan U. (2013). Qualitative research methods (2nd edition). Ankara: Seçkin.
6. Bazeley, P. & Jackson, K. (2015). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo (Translation of the 2nd edition) (Trans. A. Bakla & S. B. Demir). Ankara: Anı.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches (Translation from 3th Edt.) (Trans. Edt. M. Bütün & S. B. Demir). Ankara: Siyasal.
8. Davaslıgil, Ü., Uzun, M., Çeki, E., Köse, M. A., Çapkan, N. & Şirin, M. R. (2004). Due diligence commission's preliminary report for Gifted children. Istanbul: Çocuk Vakfı.

9. Davis, G. & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
10. Ekinci, A. (2002). Evaluation of teachers' views concerning the availability level of elementary schools for gifted children’s education. Unpublished master's thesis, Dicle University Institute of Social Sciences, Diyarbakir.
11. Ekiz, D. (2015). Scientific Research Methods (4th edition). Ankara: Anı.
12. Glesne, C. (2013). Becoming qualitative research (Trans. Ed. A. Ersoy & P. Yalçınoğlu) (3rd edition). Ankara: Anı.
13. Gökdere, M. & Çepni. S. (2004). A study on the assessment of the ın-service needs of the science teachers of gifted students: a case for science art center. Journal of Gazi University Faculty of Education, 24(2), 1-14.
14. Gökdere, M. (2004). A study of developing a model for the eduction of science teachers of gifted children. Unpublished PhD thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, Trabzon.
15. Gökdere, M., Ayvacı, H. S. & Küçük, M. (2004). The fundamental problems of the gifted children. Contemporary Education Journal of Education, 29 (313), 23-32.
16. Gökdere, M., Küçük, M. & Çepni, S. (2004). A study on the use of technology in education gifted students in science education: Science and Art Centers sample. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 3(2), 149-157.
17. Gross, M. U. M. (1994). Changing teacher attitudes to gifted students through in-service training. Gifted and Talented International, 9(1), 15-21.
18. Gross, M. U. M. (2005). Exceptionally gifted children. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
19. Hebert, T. P. & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2000). University mentors in the elementary classroom: supporting the intellectual, motivational, and emotional needs of high-ability students. Journal for the education of the gifted, 24, 122-148.
20. Johnson, A. B., Vickers, L. & Price, R. (1995). Teaching gifted children: A summer institute for regular classroom teacher. Education, 105(2), 193-200.
21. Kazu, İ. Y. & Şenol, C. (2011). Examination of teaching methods used in science and art centers. Educational Science & Practice, 10(19), 1-24.
22. Kazu, İ. Y. & Şenol, C. (2012). Views of teachers about gifted curriculum (case of SAC). E-international Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 13-35.
23. Koçal, Z. D., Kanar, E., Ermiş, S. & Pınar-Kanar, K. (2009). Basic Needs of Gifted Students at the Science and Art Center: Amasya Sample. II. National Congress for New Expansions for Gifted / 25-27 March 2009, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
24. Kontaş, H. (2009). The effectiveness of the in-service training program developed on the basis of the needs of the teachers of science and art centers in the area of curriculum development. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences Department of Education Sciences, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Ankara.
25. Kurnaz, A., Tüybek, C. & Taşkesen, Ü. S. (2009). The views and practices of the classroom teachers related to gifted students. II. National Congress for New Expansions for Gifted / 25-27 March 2009, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
26. Kurt, L. (2006). To pick out the problems which are faced during supplementary education by the science teacher of science and art center. Unpublished Master thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Department of Secondary School Science and Mathematics Education, Trabzon.
27. Levent, F. (2011). Handbook on the rights of the gifted child, for parents and teachers. İstanbul: Child Foundation.
28. MNE Circular (2007). Selection of teachers to science and art centers (http://www.memurlar.net/common/news/documents/96253/genelge_87.pdf downloaded from the address.)
29. MNE Guide (2015). The Guide for Teacher Selection and Nomination to Science and Art Centers (http://orgm.MNE.gov.tr/MNE_iys_dosyalar/2015_09/18044554_blsematamaklavuzu. pdf downloaded from the address.)
30. MNE. (2007). Directive of Science and Art Centers.
31. MNE. (2010a). T. C. Head of the Internal Audit Unit of the Ministry of Education, Process of Science and Arts Centers (Education of Gifted Individuals) Internal Audit Report, 2010/14, Ankara.
32. MNE. (2010b). Gifted/Talented Education Workshop. Ankara: MNE, General Directorate for Special Education Guidance and Counseling Services.
33. MNE. (2013). T. C. Ministry of Education Directorate General of Special Education and Guidance Services, Strategy and Implementation Plan for Gifted Individuals 2013-2017, Ankara.
34. MNE. (2014). The Draft framework of Education Program for Special Talented Individuals, Ankara.
35. MNE. (2015). Regulations for Science and art centers.
36. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
37. Özer Keskin, M., Keskin Samancı, N. & Aydın, S. (2013). Science and art centers: Current status, problems, and solution proposals. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(2), 78-96.
38. Özkan, D. (2009). The organizational effectiveness of science and art centers in accordance with the opinions of managers, teachers,parents and students. Unpublished Master thesis, Ankara University Institute of Education Sciences, Ankara.
39. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (Translation from 3th edition) (Trans. Ed. M. Bütün & S. B. Demir). Ankara: PegemA.
40. Reis, S. M. & Westberg, K. L. (1994). The Impact of staff development on teachers' ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students 1. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 127-135.
41. Şahin, F. & Levent, F. (2015). Examining the methods and strategies which classroom teachers use in the education of gifted students. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 3(5), 73-82. Sak, U. (2011). An Overview and Social Validity of the Education Programs for Talented Students Model (EPTS). Education and Science, 36(161), 1-17.
42. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18(2), 179-183. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770180211
43. Sezginsoy, B. (2007). An evaluatıon on scıence-art center ımplementatıon. Unpublished Master thesis, Balıkesir University Institute of Social Sciences Department Of Education Sciences, Balıkesir.
44. Sıcak, A. & Akkaş, E. (2013). The development of the attitude scale for Gifted students in Science and Art Center (SAC). Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(2), 136-145.
45. Summak, M. S. & Çelik-Şahin, Ç. (2014). Defining standards for principal, teacher competencies and ınstructional objectives in science and arts centers. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 2(2), 86-104.
46. Tantay, Ş. (2010). Examining schools and centers for educating the gifted and talented. Unpublished Master thesis, Maltepe University Institute of Social Sciences Department Of Education Sciences, İstanbul.
47. Tekbaş, D. (2004). An analysis of a sample incident on the enriched programme applied to a gifted child in a mainstreaming environment and a research on the efficiency of the programme. Unpublished Master thesis, Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Elementary Education, Ankara.
48. Yakmacı-Güzel, B. (2009). The Turkish teachers’ views on the education of gifted and talented. II. National Congress of the New Expansions for Gifted / 25-27 March 2009, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
49. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (9th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin.
50. Yıldırım, K. (2010). Raising the quality in qualitative research. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 79-92.
51. Yıldız, H. (2010). A case study on the arts and science centers which are a model for the education of gifted and talented children. Unpublished Master thesis, Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences Department Of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
52. Yılmaz-Atik, Ş. (2007). The evaluation of the methods applied on gifted students in elemetary school. Unpublished Master thesis, Dokuz Eylül University Institute of Education Sciences, İzmir.