Examining the Effectiveness of the In-service Training Program for the Education of the Academically Gifted students in Turkey: A Case Study

Abstract

In this study, examining the effectiveness of in-service training for gifted education has been conducted. In the study, 30 Classroom, Science, Mathematics and Preschool teachers working at schools in different cities of Turkey, took part as volunteer participants. Moreover, some criteria were specified for determining the participants. In this in-service training, teachers have received theoretical and practical training in the academicians who study on gifted education. In this process, they have designed units in groups according to the Education Program for Gifted Student Bridge with University (EPGBU) curriculum. The research has been designed as a case-study research which is one of the qualitative research models. In the study, some data tools (scales, interview form and the documents) were utilized Two of data collection tools were developed by research. These were Science Fair Mentorship Self-efficacy Scale for Teachers (SFMSST) and Gifted Education Self-efficacy Scale for Teachers (GESST). As a result of a one-week in-service training, it has been determined that the teachers’ perception of self-efficacy for scientific research mentorship and gifted education increased.

Keywords

• Gifted education,self-efficacy,science fair mentorship self-efficacy scale,gifted education self-efficacy scale,EPGBU

References

1. Abernathy, T. V., & Vineyard, R. N. (2001). Academic competitions in science. Clearing House, 74(5), 269-277.
2. Baldwin A. Y. (1993). Teachers of the gifted. In: Heller KA, Monks FJ and Passow AH (eds.) International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 621–629.
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychogical Review, 84(2), 191–215.
4. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 32(2), 122–147.
5. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annals of Child Development Six Theories of Child Development, 6, 1–60.
6. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. Encyclopedia of human behavior. Newyork: Academic Press.
7. Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Stanford, CA: Department of Psychology, Stanford University.
8. Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34(5), 317-325.

9. Buyukozturk, S. (2007).Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı, Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
10. Chan, D. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197-202.
11. Colakoglu, O., & Eksi, C., (2014). Açımlayıcı faktör analiz sürecini etkileyen unsurların değerlendirilmesi. Karaelmas Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 58-64.
12. Cook, H.M. (2003). Elementary school teachers and successful science fair. The University of North Carolina. Doctoral thesis. Greensboro. UMI: 3093864
13. Croft, L. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., pp. 558-571). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14. Cropley, A. J., & Urban, K. K. (2000). Programs nd strategies for nurturing creativity. K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönsk, R. J. Snberg and R. F. Subotnik (Eds), Internetional Hanbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
15. Czerniak, C. M. (1996). Predictors of success in a district science fair competition: An exploratory study. School Science & Mathematics, 96(1), 21-28.
16. Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe A. T. (1996). Predictors of science fair participation using the theory of planned behavior. School Science & Mathematics, 97(7), 335-362.
17. Feldhusen, J., Hansen, J., & Kennedy, D. (1989). Curriculum development for GCT teachers. GCT, 12(6), 12-19.
18. Ferrell, B., Kress, M., & Croft, J. (1988). Characteristics of teachers in a fulldaygifted program. Roeper Review, 10(3), 136-140.
19. Fisanick, L. M. (2010). A descriptive study of the middle school science teacher behavior for required student participation in science fair competitions. Doctoral Thesis. Pennsylvania University. Indiana. UMI Number: 3403187
20. Friedman, I., & Kass, E. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675-686.
21. Gallagher, J. J., Coleman, M. R., & Nelson, S. (1995). Perceptions of educational reform by educators representing middle schools, cooperative learning, and giftededucation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 66-76.
22. Gist, M. E. (1989).The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personel Psychology. 42, 4, 787-805.
23. Gross, M. U. M. (1994). Changing teacher attitudes to gifted students through inservice training. Gifted and Talented International, 9(1), 15-21.
24. Gross, M. U. M. (1997). Changingteacherattitudestowardsgiftedchildren: An earlyandessential step. In J. Chan, R. Li& J. Spinks (Eds.), Maximising potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride (pp. 3-22). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Social Sciences Research Centre.
25. Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Inequity in equity: The paradox of gifted education in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 43(1), 87-103.
26. Grote, M. (1995).Teacher Opinions Concerning Science Projects and Science Fairs.Ohio Journal of Science, 95 (4), 274-277.
27. Grote, M. (1996). The nature of student science projects in comparison to educational goals for science. Ohio Journal of Science, 96(4/5), 81-88.
28. Heath, W. J. (1997). What are the most effective characteristics of teachers of the gifted? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 411-665)
29. Kaplan, S. N. (2009). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert & C. A. Little (Ed.), Systems and Models for developing programs for the gifted and talented in (s. 235-251). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
30. Klien, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis, London: Routledge.
31. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
32. Marsa, L. (1993). Do high school science competitions predict success? The Scientist, 7(8), 21-22.
33. McCoach, D. B., &Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-254.
34. McDonough, S., G., (1995). How parental support affect students’ attitudes towards the science fair. Reports-research. 143, 46 pp. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390707.
35. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publication.
36. Mills, C., (2003) Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272–281.
37. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of theresearch on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.
38. Rosemarin, S., (2014).Should the teacher of the gifted be gifted? .Gifted Education International. 30(3) 263–270
39. Rowe, K. (2007). School and teacher effectiveness: Implications of findings from evidence-based research on teaching and teacher quality. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp.767-786). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
40. Sahin, F. & Tortop, H. S., (2013). Development of gifted students’ teacher preference scale (GSTPS). Unpublished Docement.
41. Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekalılar özellikleri tanılanmaları ve eğitimleri [Gifted Students and Their Education], Maya Akademi, Ankara.
42. Sak, U., (2011). An overview and social validity of Education Programs for Talented Students Models (EPTS). Education and Science, 36, 213-229.
43. Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 138-154.
44. Stednitz, U., & Speck, A. (1986). Young children can complete creative, independent projects. Gifted Child Today, 9(2), 19-21.
45. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Tomlinson, C. A., & Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 9–12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
47. Tortop, H. S., & Eker, C., (2014). Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitim Programlarında Öz-düzenlemeli Öğrenme Neden Yer Almalıdır? [Why should Self-regulated Learning Skills Take Place in Gifted Education Programs?]. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 23-41.
48. Tortop, H. S., & Kunt, K., (2013). Investigation of primary school teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5 (2), 441-451
49. Tortop, H. S., (2013a). A new model program for academically gifted students in turkey: overview of the education program for the gifted students’ bridge with university (EPGBU). Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist and Giftedness, 2(1), 21-31.
50. Tortop, H. S., (2013b). Bu benim eserim bilim şenliğinin yönetici, öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri ve fen projelerinin kalitesi odağından görünümü [Overview of a national science fair in turkey from the focus on administrators’, teachers’, students’ views and quality of science projects]. Adıyaman Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 255-308.
51. Tortop, H. S., (2013c). Science teachers' views about the science fair at primary education level.Turkish Journal of Qualitative Inqury, 4(2), 56-64.
52. Tortop, H. S., (2013d). Development of teacher attitude scale towards science fair. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(2), 58-62.
53. Tortop, H. S., (2014a). Gifted students’ views about first stage of the Education Program for the Gifted Students’ Bridge with University (EPGBU). Turkish Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 15(2), 62-74
54. Tortop, H. S., (2014b). Examining of the predictors of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the quality of the science fair projects in Turkey. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 31-44. DOI No: 10.12973/nefmed.2014.8.1.a2
55. Tortop, H.S., (2010). The application of project based learning model supported by prepared according to constructivist approach the field trip to the solar energy and its usage areas. Doctoral Thesis. Suleyman Demirel University. Isparta. Turkey.
56. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, A. H. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
57. TUBİTAK, (STRCT) 2014. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK). http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/en.
58. Van TasselBaska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for thefield of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.
59. Wang, X. H., & Yang, B. Z. (2003). Why competition may discourage students from learning? A behavioral economic analysis. Education Economics, 11(2), 117-128.
60. Yasar, S., & Baker, D. (2003).The impact of involvement in a science fair on seventh grade students. Annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED478905.pdf
61. Yayla, Z., & Uzun, B., (2008). Fen ve teknoloji eğitiminde proje çalışmaları ve bilim şenlikleri önemli.XVII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi. 1-3 Eylül 2008. Sakarya. [in Turkish]
62. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H., (2003). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences]. Seçkin Yayıncılık. 3. Baskı. Ankara.
63. Yuen, M., & Westwood, P. (2004). Expected competencies of teachers of gifted learners: Perspectives from Chinese teachers and students. Gifted and Talented International, 19(1), 7-14.