Digital Learning and Gifted Education: A Case Study

Öz

Digital learning processes and applications are a crucial component of modern education, and this is equally valid for the education and talent development of gifted students. Digital learning experiences provide students and teachers with roles and competencies that are not present in traditional learning environments. However, these learning processes must be well-designed, and the applications and technologies used should contribute effectively to achieving learning objectives. This study examines the use of digital learning processes and technologies in the education and talent development of gifted students. Conducted using a case study approach, the research involved observing lesson recordings of three different science teachers and discussing the impact of digital learning tools on analytical, creative, and practical skills. The findings indicate that while the digital technologies used in the lessons effectively supported analytical skills, they were not utilized efficiently for developing creative and practical skills. Additionally, deficiencies were identified in teachers' abilities to design digital learning processes. This situation hinders the effective use of digital learning technologies and limits students from fully realizing their potential. The study emphasizes the necessity for teachers to receive training and support to use digital educational tools more effectively and offers recommendations to enhance digital learning practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gifted education
• digital learning
• teacher competence

Dijital Öğrenme ve Özel Yetenekliler Eğitimi: Bir Durum Çalışması

Öz

Dijital öğrenme süreçleri ve uygulamaları günümüzde eğitimin önemli bir unsurudur ve bu durum özel yetenekli öğrencilerin eğimi ve yetenek gelişimi içinde geçerlidir. Dijital öğrenme tecrübeleri öğrencilere ve öğretmenlere, geneleksel öğrenme ortamında bulunmayan rol ve yetkinlikler sağlamıştır. Ancak bu öğrenme sürecinin iyi tasarlanması ve kullanılan uygulama ve teknolojilerin öğrenme amaçlarının gerçekleşmesine katkıda bulunacak şekilde kullanılması gerekir. Bu çalışma, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimlerinde ve yetenek gelişimlerinin desteklenmesinde dijital öğrenme süreçleri ve teknolojilerinin kullanımını incelemektedir. Durum çalışması yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmada, üç farklı fen bilgisi öğretmeninin işledikleri ders kaydı izlenmiş ve dijital öğrenme araçlarının analitik, yaratıcı ve pratik beceriler üzerine etkisi tartışılmıştır. İncelemeler sonucunda, derslerde kullanılan dijital teknolojilerin analitik becerileri destekleyecek nitelikte kullanıldığı görülürken, yaratıcı ve pratik becerilerin geliştirilmesi için etkili kullanılamadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca, öğretmenlerin dijital öğrenme süreçlerini tasarlama becerilerinde yetersizlikler tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum, dijital öğrenme teknolojilerinin etkin bir şekilde kullanılmasını engellemekte ve öğrencilerin potansiyellerini tam anlamıyla gerçekleştirmelerini zorlaştırmaktadır. Çalışma, öğretmenlerin dijital eğitim araçlarını daha etkili kullanabilmeleri için eğitim ve destek almalarının gerekliliğine vurgu yapmakta ve öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Özel yetenekliler eğitimi
• dijital öğrenme
• öğretmen yetkinliği

Kaynakça

1. Aljughaiman, A. M., and 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. Alshehri, A. H. A. (2022). Impact of Online Learning on Gifted Students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 10(4), 849-867. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2641
3. Bock, Z. (2016). Multimodality, Creativity and Children’s Meaning-Making: Drawings, Writings, Imaginings. Stellenbosch Papers In Linguistics Plus, 49, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5842/49-0-669
4. Gagné, F. (2013). The DMGT: Changes Within, Beneath, and Beyond. Talent Development and Excellence, 5(1), 5-19. http://www.iratde.org
5. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., and Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. L@S 2014 - Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
6. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
7. Kalantzis, M., and Cope, B. (2020). After the COVID-19 Crisis: Why Higher Education May (and Perhaps Should) Never be the Same. https://cgscholar.com/community/community_profiles/new-learning/community_updates/114650
8. Kontkanen, J., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., Hartikainen-Ahia, A., and Åhlberg, M. (2016). Collaborative processes in species identification using an internet-based taxonomic resource. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 96-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1129469

9. Sayı, A., and 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
10. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Içinde Literacy in the New Media Age. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299234
11. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
12. Kress, G., and Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003
13. Lankshear, C., and Knobel, M. (2006a). New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning (2. bs). Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315390789-4
14. Lankshear, C., and Knobel, M. (2006b). New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning (2. bs). Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315390789-4
15. Leeuwen, T. Van, Djonov, E., and O’Halloran, K. L. (2013). “David Byrne really does love PowerPoint”: art as research on semiotics and semiotic technology. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.738998
16. Lim, V. F. (2020a). Digital Learning in the Time of a Pandemic. https://singteach.nie.edu.sg/vsl-digital-learning/
17. Lim, V. F. (2020b). Losses and Gains in Digital Learning. https://panmemic.hypotheses.org/568
18. Lim, V. F., and Hung, D. (2016). Teachers as Learning Designers: What Technology Has to Do with Learning. A View from Singapore. Educational Technology, 56(4), 26-29.
19. Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., and Noss, R. (2012). Nesta - Decoding Learning: The Proof, Promise and Potential of Digital Education.
20. Mei, S., Leng, P., Dai, X., Li, Z., and Ma, Z. (2021). Teacher Knowledge and Skill for Gifted and Talented Education. 2021(5). www.converter-magazine.info
21. Newfield, D. (2009). Transmodal semiosis in classrooms: Case studies from South Africa [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of London Institute of Education.
22. OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection.
23. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., and Corwith, S. (2010). Distance education: Where it started and where it stands for gifted children and their educators. Gifted Child Today, 34(3), 16-25.
24. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 - O’Reilly Media. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
25. Potts, J. A., and Potts, S. (2017). Is Your Gifted Child Ready for Online Learning? Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 226-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517722182
26. Renzulli, J. R. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. Içinde R. J. Davidson (Ed.), he three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity (ss. 246-279). Cambridge University Press.
27. Rui, N., and Feldman, J. (2012). IRR (Inter-Rater Reliability) of a COP (Classroom Observation Protocol)--A Critical Appraisal. Online Submission, 3, 305–315.
28. Savin-baden, M., and Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative Research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
29. Selander, S. (2008). Designs of learning and the formation and transformation of knowledge in an era of globalization. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9068-9
30. Selander, S. (2024). Meaning-making and transformative engagement - Notes on Gunther Kress’s social semiotic and multimodal approach to learning. Text and Talk. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2022-0099
31. Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., and Wieman, C. E. (2013). Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM – COPUS Observation codes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
32. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The Theory of Successful Intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3(4), 292-316.
33. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39, 189-202.
34. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes: New techniques for a new millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003
35. Sternberg, R. J. (2024). A Duplex Model for Giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(2), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231217730
36. Sternberg, R. J., and Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Stanford University Press.
38. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
39. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms (3. bs). ASCD.
40. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Içinde M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Ed.), Mind in society: The development of higher pedagogical proceses. Harvard University Press.
41. West, E. A., Paul, C. A., Webb, D., and Potter, W. H. (2013). Variation of instructor-student interactions in an introductory interactive physics course. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010109
42. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage.