The Impact of Teachers' Technological Self-Efficacy on Gifted Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Case Study

Öz

This qualitative study explores the role of teachers' technological self-efficacy in integrating advanced tools, such as augmented reality (AR) and digital design software, into their instructional practices for gifted students. Through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations of three science teachers at a Science and Arts Center (SAC) in southeastern Turkey, the study examines the intersection of self-efficacy, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), and gifted education. This study employed a qualitative research design, specifically utilizing a case study approach. Thematic analysis revealed five key themes: (1) Technology Integration, highlighting the use of AR and digital tools to enrich learning experiences; (2) Impact on Learning, showing how technology increases student engagement and retention; (3) Teachers' Technological Self-Efficacy, demonstrating that teachers with higher self-efficacy were more confident in using and experimenting with technology; (4) Differentiated Instruction, emphasizing the role of technology in tailoring learning experiences for gifted students; and (5) Barriers and Challenges, identifying obstacles such as limited resources and insufficient professional development. The findings suggest that while technology has significant potential to enhance gifted education, there is a pressing need for ongoing training and institutional support to address barriers and strengthen teachers' technological competencies. The study provides practical recommendations for improving technology integration in education and advancing teachers' technological self-efficacy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Technological Self-efficacy
• Gifted Education
• Differentiation
• Technology Integration
• Augmented Reality

Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitiminde Öğretmenlerin Teknolojik Öz Yeterliklerinin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisine Etkisi: Bir Durum Çalışması

Öz

Bu nitel çalışma, öğretmenlerin artırılmış gerçeklik (AG) ve dijital tasarım yazılımı gibi gelişmiş araçları üstün yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik öğretim uygulamalarına entegre etmede teknolojik öz yeterliliklerinin rolünü araştırmaktadır. Çalışma, Türkiye'nin güneydoğusundaki bir Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi'nde (BİLSEM) görev yapan üç fen bilimleri öğretmeniyle yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve sınıf içi gözlemler aracılığıyla öz yeterlilik, teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi (TPAB) ve üstün yeteneklilerin eğitiminin kesişimini incelemektedir. Bu çalışmada nitel bir araştırma tasarımı kullanılmış, vaka çalışması yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Tematik analiz beş ana temayı ortaya çıkarmıştır: (1) Öğrenme deneyimlerini zenginleştirmek için AG ve dijital araçların kullanımını vurgulayan Teknoloji Entegrasyonu; (2) Teknolojinin öğrenci katılımını ve kalıcılığını nasıl artırdığını gösteren Öğrenme Üzerindeki Etkisi; (3) Yüksek öz yeterliliğe sahip öğretmenlerin teknolojiyi kullanma ve deneme konusunda kendilerine daha fazla güvendiklerini gösteren Öğretmenlerin Teknolojik Öz Yeterliliği; (4) Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için öğrenme deneyimlerini uyarlamada teknolojinin rolünü vurgulayan Farklılaştırılmış Öğretim; ve (5) Sınırlı kaynaklar ve yetersiz mesleki gelişim gibi engelleri tanımlayan Engeller ve Zorluklar. Bulgular, teknolojinin üstün yetenekliler eğitimini geliştirmek için önemli bir potansiyele sahip olmasına rağmen, engelleri ele almak ve öğretmenlerin teknolojik yeterliliklerini güçlendirmek için sürekli eğitim ve kurumsal desteğe acil ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunun iyileştirilmesi ve öğretmenlerin teknolojik öz yeterliliklerinin geliştirilmesi için pratik öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teknolojik Öz-yeterlilik
• Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi
• Farklılaştırma
• Teknoloji Entegrasyonu
• Artırılmış Gerçeklik

Kaynakça

1. Aljughaiman, A. M., & Ayoub, A. E. A. (2012). The effect of an enrichment program on developing analytical, creative, and practical abilities of elementary gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 153–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212440616
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
3. Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability atudents on achievement-relevant Dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Cai, S., Liu, C., Wang, T., Liu, E., & Liang, J. C. (2021). Effects of learning physics using Augmented Reality on students’ self-efficacy and conceptions of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13020
6. Çalişkan, E. (2017). An investigation of teachers’ views on the use of information technologies in the training of talented and gifted pupils. Gazi University Gazi Faculty of Education Journal, 37(3), 811–833. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.330149
7. Çayır, A., & Balcı, E. (2023). The effect of differentiated instruction on gifted students critical thinking skills and mathematics problem solving attitudes. Educational Research and Reviews, 18(12), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2023.4375
8. Chen, J., Yun Dai, D., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.794892

9. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Pearson.
10. Doğru, M., Şeren, N., & Koçulu, A. (2017). Investigation of classroom teachers' self-efficacy perceptions regarding technology use in terms of various variables. Eurasian Journal of Researches in Social and Economics, 4(12), 464–472.
11. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? ETR&D, 53(4), 25–39.
12. Eysink, T. H. S., Hulsbeek, M., & Gijlers, H. (2017). Supporting primary school teachers in differentiating in the regular classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.002
13. Fei, V. L., & Hung, D. (2016). Teachers as learning designers: What technology has to do with learning. A view from singapore. Educational Technology, 56(4), 26–29.
14. Gagné, F. (2013). The dmgt: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. Talent Development & Excellence, 5(1), 5–19.
15. Godor, B. P. (2019). Gifted metaphors: Exploring the metaphors of teachers in gifted education and their impact on teaching the gifted. Roeper Review, 41(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1553219
16. Gül, M. D., & Ayık, Z. (2023). Enrichment studies in gifted education: A bibliometric analysis with rstudio. Participatory Educational Research, 10(3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.55.10.3
17. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
18. Kaşçı Tuğçe, & Selçuk, G. (2021). Examination of classroom teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(4), 774–792. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1018879
19. Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children (pp. 71–93). Springer.
20. Kent, A. M., & Giles, R. M. (2017). Preservice teachers’ technology self-efficacy. SRATE, 26(1).
21. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Springer. Lavrysh, Y. (2019). Effective integration of educational technologies in terms of TPCK framework at technical university. International Journal of Pedagogy Innovation and New Technologies, 6(2), 33–39. https://doi.org/doi:10.5604/01.3001.0013.6824
22. Li, T. (2024). The influence of information technologies on creative and critical thinking of students. Cultura y Educacion, 36(3), 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/11356405241268982
23. Mei, S., Leng, P., Dai, X., Li, Z., & Ma, Z. (2021). Teacher knowledge and skill for gifted and talented education. 2021(5). www.converter-magazine.info
24. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
25. Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher--‐efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(3).
26. NAGC. (2021). Competencies for teachers: gifted and talented, Grades K-12. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Aiming talent development toward creative eminence in the 21st century. Roeper Review, 38(3), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1184497
27. Önal, N. T., & Önal, N. (2021). The effect of augmented reality on the astronomy achievement and interest level of gifted students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4573–4599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10474-7
28. Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294
29. Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, Issue 2, pp. 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601
30. Reis, S. M., Renzulli, S. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
31. Sayı, A. K., & Yurtseven, N. (2022). How do gifted students learn? Their learning styles and dispositions towards learning. Education 3-13, 50(8), 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1929380
32. Sihanita, Y. K., Priambodo, A., & Tuasikal, A. R. S. (2024). TPCK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) competence for educator: A literature review. EDUKASIA: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 5(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.62775/edukasia.v5i2.851
33. Solissa, M. E., Maq, M. M., Aldina, F., & Wantu, M. H. (2023). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): An overview through self-efficacy and motivation to become a professional teacher. Edumaspul-Journal of Education, 7(2), 2562–2571.
34. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
35. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202
36. Ülger, B. B., & Çepni, S. (2020). Gifted education and STEM: A thematic review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(3), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.38
37. VanTassel-Baska, J. L., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
38. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), pp. 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
39. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher pedagogical proceses. Harvard University Press.
40. Yıldırım, P., Alan, B., & Yıldız, S. (2024). The impact of innovative technological practices for gifted children’s education on support classroom teachers’ attitudes and opinions towards technology use. Theoretical Education, 17(4), 849–872. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1477823
41. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods. Sage.
42. Yousef, A. M. F. (2021). Augmented reality assisted learning achievement, motivation, and creativity for children of low-grade in primary school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 966–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12536
43. Zengin, S., Çolak, N., Akel, E., Ay, Z. Ö., Çolak, A., & Metin, E. (2024). Teachers’ views on the use of technology in education. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 11(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10616592
44. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016