Views of Gifted Secondary School Students on the "Matter and its Nature" Courses Taught through the EPTS (Education Program for Talented Students) Curriculum Model

Abstract

The study aimed to determine the views of gifted students on the units on "Matter and Its Nature" using the EPTS Curriculum Model. The data was collected from four gifted 6th graders. Semi-structured interviews and diaries were analyzed thematically. Findings showed that students had positive thoughts about the unit. They stated that the lessons were taught with modeling, experimentation, computer-assisted simulation. They enjoyed learning these lessons. The students stated that they did not like the traditional education system in formal education, but they found the lessons taught in this context interesting. The fact that the students found the science courses created using this model effective and enjoyable. It shows that the stakeholders can teach science concepts more effectively and permanently by using this model. teachers should definitely use this model in their lessons, and researchers should also carry out studies where they can adapt the curriculum model to other units.

Keywords

• Differentiated instruction
• giftedness
• science education
• the education programs for talented students (EPTS) curriculum model

References

1. An, H., & Yoo, M. (2015). Analysis of research trends in STEAM education for the gifted. Journal of Gifted and Talented Education, 25, 410–420. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2015.25.3.401
2. Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy‐value models for the STEM persistence plans of ninth‐grade, high‐ability students: A comparison between Black, Hispanic, and White students. Science Education, 98(2), 216-242.
3. Ataman, A. (2012). Üstün yetenekli çocuk kimdir. Geleceğin mimarları üstün yetenekliler sempozyumu, 27, 4-15.
4. Avcı, G. (2016). Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitim Programları Değerlendirmeleri Öğrenci Formunun (ÜYEP-DÖF) revize edilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin araştırılması (Doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi (Türkiye)).
5. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. M. Bütün & SB Demir, Çev. (Eds.). İstanbul: Siyasal Kitapevi.
6. Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
7. Çepni, S. (2014). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş, Celepler Matbaacılık, Trabzon.
8. Çepni, S., & Ormancı, Ü. (2018). Geleceğin dünyası. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 01-52.

9. Farrah, M. (2012). Reflective journal writing as an effective technique in the writing process, An-Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities), 26 (4).
10. Girgin, D. (2020). Evaluation of project-based learning process of gifted children via reflective journals. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 772-796.
11. Gorlewski J. & Greene K. (2011). Research for the classroom: The power of reflective writing. The English Journal, 100, 4, 90-93.
12. Gündüz, M., & Akın, A. (2015). Türkiye’de devlet okullarındaki özel eğitimle ilgili sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Research in Education and Teaching], 4(2), 86-95.
13. Johnson, D. T., Boyce, L. N. ve VanTassel-Baska, J. (2013). Science curriculum review: Evaluating materials for high-ability learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 36-42
14. Kanlı, E. (2011). Üstün zekâlı ve yeteneklilerin alan eğitiminde hızlandırma. HAYEF Journal of Education, 8(2), 95-104.
15. 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 (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pn. 235-249). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
16. Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
17. Maker, J. C. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Apsen Systems.
18. MEB. (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar ) öğretim programı. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
19. MEB. (2006b). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [The policy of special education] Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
20. MEB. (2013). Özel yetenekli bireyler strateji ve uygulama planı (2013-2017) [Strategic Plan on Gifted Education 2013-2017]. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
21. Moon, J. (2009). The use of graduated scenariost of acilitatethe learning of complex and difficult to describe concepts. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 8 (1), 57-70.
22. National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC). (2010). NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Kasım 2021. http://www.nagc.org/ProgrammingStandards.aspx .
23. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1978). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average. Educational Leadership 59(2), 51-57.
24. Ryu, J., Lee, Y., Kim, Y., Goundar, P., Lee, J., & Jung, J. Y. (2021). STEAM in Gifted Education in Korea. Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific, 787-808.
25. Sak, U. (2011). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programları modeli (ÜYEP) ve sosyal geçerliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (161), 213-229.
26. Sak, U. (2011a). Üstün yetenekliler: Özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri. Ankara: Maya Akademi.
27. Sak, U. (2013). Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitim Programları Modeli (ÜYEP) ve sosyal geçerliliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 169(38), 51-61.
28. Sak, U. (2017). Üstün zekâlılar: özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri. Ankara: Vize Akademi.
29. Sak, U., & Karabacak, F. (2010). What research says about the Education Programs for Talented Students (EPTS). Paper presented at the 12th ECHA Conference, Paris, France.
30. Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and learning. In W.M. Reynolds & G.J. Miller (Ed.), Handbook of psychology. Vol.7, pp.59-79. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
31. Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163-173). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
32. Stake, E. J. ve Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (10), 1065-1088.
33. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
34. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Corwin Press.
35. Tyler-Wood, T. L. (2000). An effective mathematics and science curriculum option for secondary gifted education. Rooper Review, 22(4), 266-269.
36. Unrau, J. N. (2008). Thoughtful teachers, thoughtful learners: Helping students think critically. Canada: Pippin Publishing Corporation.
37. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.
38. Waiyarod, S. (2007). Enhancing creative productivity by using 4E-C learning model for scientifically gifted and talented students. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok.
39. Walker, B. J. (2003). Supporting Struggling Readers. Canada: Pippin Publishing Corporation. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119299