Some differences in the cognitive domain of gifted students from their peers; learning speed, memory ability (Akarsu, 2004; Ataman, 2004; Feldhusen, 1998; Finley, 2008; Sak, 2010) and self-regulation and planning skills (Finley, 2008; Terman and Oden, 1976; VanTassel-Baska, 1998a). Also, their intrinsic motivation is greater (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; Hong, Greene & Hartzell, 2011; Jeltova & Grigorenko, 2005; Lens & Rand, 2000; Phillips & Lindsay, 2006) than their peers. Many educational strategies have been proposed for the education of the gifted students in the world (Renzulli, 1977; Betts, 1986; Rogers, 2002; Kulik, 1992; Maker; 1982; Siegel, 2005; Sak, 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2002; Reis & Renzulli, 1978; Van Tassel-Baska & Wood; 2009; Kaplan, 1986; Feldhusen & Kollof, 1986). In Turkey, gifted education has been one of the academically popular topics (Gokdere, Kucuk & Cepni, 2004; MoE, 2013) especially establishing of Science and Art Centers (SACs) in Turkey (MoE, 2007; Kunt & Tortop; 2013). Besides, Education Program for the Gifted Students -a new program- which was founded in Anadolu University and coordinated by Prof.Dr. Ugur SAK (Sak, 2011). The Education Program for the Gifted Students’ Bridge with University (EPGBU) which was established by Hasan Said Tortop at Bulent Ecevit University at Center for Special Education Research & Application (Tortop, 2013c), and carried out to bring an innovation in gifted education in Turkey

Year 2014, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 62 - 74, 01.06.2014

Hasan Said Torto

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.14949

Cited By: 4

Abstract

GIFTED STUDENTS’ VIEWS ABOUT FIRST STAGE OF THE EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR THE GIFTED STUDENTS’ BRIDGE WITH UNIVERSITY (EPGBU)

Abstract

All over the world, studies related to design of appropriate educational programs for gifted students are continuing. It is also important that these programs should be adapted to developing educational technologies. In Turkey, the structure of the Education Program for the Gifted Students’ Bridge with University (EPGBU) which has been prepared for the education of gifted students in the academic field and determined as the primary educational approach to e-mentoring, is presented EPGBU first stage of teaching process in this article. EPGBU teaching process is consisting of three periods. In this study, students' opinions about the first period of the program have been examined. Gifted students expressed positive opinions about EPGBU. They offered the suggestions for improvement of the program. It can be said that the social validity of EPGBU is high thanks to findings.

Keywords

Gifted students, e-mentoring, The Education Program for the Gifted Students’ Bridge with University (EPGBU)

References

• Akarsu, F. (2004). Şirin, M., R., Kulaksızoğlu A, ve Bilgili A., E., (Ed). Üstün yetenekliler.
• I.Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Makaleler Kitabı [Gifted children. 1 st Turkish Congress of Gifted and Talented Children Proceedings Book], (127-154). Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları, Yayın No:64, Istanbul. Akin, L., & Hilbun, J. (2007). E-mentoring in three voices. Online Journal of Distance
• Learning Administration, 10(1), 1. Ataman, A. (2004). Şirin, M., R., Kulaksızoğlu A, ve Bilgili A., E., (Ed). Üstün zekalı ve üstün yetenekli çocuklar. I.Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Makaleler Kitabı içinde, [Gifted and talented children.1 st Turkish Congress of Gifted and Talented
• Children Proceedings Book]. (155-168). Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları, Yayın No:64, İstanbul. Bennett, D., Tsikalas, K., Hupert, N., Meade, T., & Honey, M. (1998). The benefits of online mentoring for high school girls: Telementoring Young Women in Science, Engineering, and Computing Project, year 3 evaluation. Newyork: Center for Children & Technology.
• Project Report 771. Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://cct.edc.org/publications/reports
• Betts, G. T. (1985). The autonomous learner model: For the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing.
• Betts, G. T. & Kercher, J.K. (1999).The autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability.
• Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing. Bonnett, C. (2002). Mirroring and managing in electronic mentoring: Factors in interactivity between student–scientist pairs. Unpublished master’s paper, University of
• North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Bonnett, C., Wildermuth, B. M., Sonnenwald, D. H. (2006). Interactivity between protégés and scientists in an electronic mentoring program. Instructional Science. 34, 21-61.
• Calik, M., Artun, H. & Kucuk, Z. (2013). Dördüncü sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji destekli bilimsel araştırma web sitesi üzerinden yaptıkları diyalogların incelenmesi [Investigating senior science student teachers’ dialogues undertaken on technology embedded scientific inquiry web-site]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 138-155.
• Cetin, M. (2013). Milli eğitimde çalışan İngilizce öğretmenlerinin profesyonel mesleki gelişimleri için yardımcı araç olarak e-mentorluk üzerine bir eylem araştırması[An action research on e-mentoring: a supplemental tool for professional development of EFL teacher working at MNE schools]. Master Thesis. Cag University. Institute of Social Sciences. Mersin.
• Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Identification and assessment of talented learners, In Vantassel
• Baska, J. (Eds), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners, (3rd ed, 193-209) Love Publishing, Colorado. Finley, L. T. (2008). Implementing a differentiated model of gifted education: perspectives of elementary principals and teachers. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Archadia University.
• Gottfried, A. E. & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179-183.
• Grassinger, R., Proath, M. & Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: a conceptual analysis, High Ability Studies,21(1), 27-46.
• Gray, W. A. (1982). Mentor-Assisted Enrichment Projects for the Gifted and Talented.
• Educational Leadership, November, 16-21. Gokdere, M., Kucuk, M, ve Cepni, S., (2003). Gifted science education in Turkey: Gifted teachers' selection, perspectives and needs. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 4(2), Article 5.
• Hong, E., Greene M. & Hartzell, S. (2011). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of elemantary teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 250-264.
• Hunt, K. (2005). E-mentoring: solving the issue of mentoring across distances.
• Development and Learning in Organizations 19(5), 7–10. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1477-7282&volume=19&issue=5
• IGET-Network, (2013). Retrievedfrom http://www.iget-network.org/programs/e- mentoring
• Jeltova, I. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). Systemic approaches to giftedness. In Sternberg
• R., J., Davidson, J., E., (Ed) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed, 171-186), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kahraman, M. (2010).Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının mesleki gelişiminde e- mentörlük [E-mentoring for professional development of information technologies teachers candidates]. Doctoral Thesis. Anadolu University. Eskisehir, Turkey.
• Kazu, I. Y. & Şenol, C., (2012). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM örneği). [Views of teachers about gifted curriculum (Case of BILSEM)].
• E-International Journal of Educational Research. 3(2), 13-35. Kaplan, S. N. (1986). The Grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. J. S. Renzulli (Ed), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, Connecticut, USA: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
• Kulik, J. A. (1992): An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Kunt, K. & Tortop, H. S. (2013). Türkiye’deki üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin bilim ve sanat merkezlerine ilişkin metaforik algıları [The metaphoric perceptions of gifted students about Science and Arts Centers in Turkey]. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(2), SI, 117
• Kuzu, A., Kahraman, M., & Odabaşı, F. (2012). Mentörlükte Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: e
• Mentörlük. [e-Mentoring: a new approach in mentoring]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(4), 173-183. Lamb, P & Aldous, D. (2013). The role of E-Mentoring in distinguishing pedagogic experiences of gifted and talented pupils in physical Education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-20.
• Lens, W. & Rand, P. (2000). Motivation and cognition: their role in the development of giftedness, In Heller, A., K., Mönks, F., J., Sternberg, R., J., & Subotnik, R., F.(Eds),
• International handbook of giftedness and talented, (2nd ed, 193-202) Pergamon Press, Oxford. Levent, F. (2011). Üstün yetenekli çocukların hakları el kitabı, anne baba ve öğretmenler için[Handbook of gifted children’ rights, for parents and teachers]. Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları: Istanbul.
• Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Apsen Systems.
• MoE (Ministry of Education of Turkish Republic), (2013). 2013-2017 Üstün Yetenekli
• Bireyler Strateji ve Uygulama Planı [Gifted Students Strategy and Executive Plan 2013- 2017], Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/10_ek-1_ustunyetenekliler.pdf
• MoE, SaCs Directive (BILSEM Yönergesi), (2007). Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/2593_0.html
• MoE, Science High Shool Directive (Fen Lisesi Yönetmeliği), (2013). Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/50.html
• MentorNet, (2002). 2000-2001 MentorNet Evaluation Report.Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://www.mentornet.net/documents/about/results/evaluation
• Miles, Matthew B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A Source Book of
• New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nash, D. (2001). Enter the mentor. Parenting for High Potential, 12, 18-21.
• O’Neill, D. K. (1998). Engaging science practice through science practitioners: Design experiments in K-12 telementoring. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
• O'Neill, K., Weiler, M. & Sha, L. (2005). Software support for online mentoring programs:
• A research-inspired design. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(1), 109-131. Ozdemir, T. Y. (2012). İl eğitim denetmen ve yardımcılarının mesleki gelişimlerini devam ettirmede e-mentorluk modeli [E-mentoring model for maintaining the provincial education inspectors and assistant inspectors? professional development]. Doctoral
• Thesis. Educational Sciences Institute. Fırat University. Elazig, Turkey. Phillips, N. & Lindsay, G. (2006). Motivation in gifted students, High Ability Studies,17 (1), 57-73.
• Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
• Sak, U. (2009). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programları. Üstün zekalı ve üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimlerinde model bir program [The education programs for talented students model (EPTS). Model program for gifted and talented students]. Maya Akademi Yayıncılık: Ankara.
• Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekalılar özellikleri tanılanmaları ve eğitimleri [Characteristics of gifted students, identification and their education]., Maya Akademi, Ankara,Turkey.
• Sak, U. (2011). An overview and social validity the education programs for talented students model (EPTS). Education and Science,36(161), 1-17.
• Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3), 449-467.
• Siegel, D. (2003). Mentors on the net: Extending learning through telementoring. Gifted Child Today, 26(4), 51-54.
• Siegel, D. (2005). Developing mentorship programs for gifted students. TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
• Stake, J. E. & 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.
• Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1976). Genetic studies of genius: Volume IV the gifted child grows up twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
• Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S.N., Renzulli, J.S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J. & Burns, D. (2002).
• Tortop, H. S. (2013b). Science Teachers' Views about the Science Fair at Primary
• Education Level. Turkish Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 56-64. Tortop, H. S. (2013c). 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 Young Scientist and Giftedness, 2(1), 21-31. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1998). Characteristics and needs of talented learners, In, Van
• Tassel-Baska, J. (Ed), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners, (3rd ed,173- 191), Love Publishing, Colorado. Van Tassel-Baska, J. & Wood, S. M. (2009). The integrated curriculum model. 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. Mansfield center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Yang, Chia-Hsin (2001).The application of Internet teaching in grade 1–9 curriculum. Taiwan Education, 607, 2–9.
• Yıldırım, A., Simsek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative
• Research Methods in Social Sciences], Ankara: Seckin Yayıncılık, Turkey.