Özel Yetenekli Olarak Tanılanan ve Tanılanmayan Çocukların Annelerinin Çocuklarına Yönelik Kullandığı Soru Sorma ve Cevap Verme Stratejilerine İlişkin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Bu çalışma, anne-çocuk ilişkisindeki soru-cevap iletişiminin dinamiğini inceleyerek, özel yetenekli olarak tanılanan ve tanılanmayan çocukların annelerinin çocuklarına yönelik kullandıkları soru sorma ve yanıt verme stratejilerindeki farklılıkları araştırdı. Niteliksel bir yaklaşım kullanılarak, Türkiye'de çocuğu özel yetenekli olarak tanılanan 19 anne ve çocuğu özel yetenekli olarak tanılanmayan 25 anne olmak üzere toplam 44 anne ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular, özel yetenekli olarak tanılanan çocukların annelerinin çocuklarına yönelik çoğunlukla hipotez, yorumlama ve yansıtıcı soru türlerini kullandıklarını, özel yetenekli olarak tanılanmayan çocukların annelerinin ise çıkarım ve yorumlama soru türlerini kullandıklarını göstermektedir. Yanıt verme stratejileriyle ilgili olarak, özel yetenekli olarak tanılanan çocukların annelerin çoğunlukla neden-sonuç ilişkilerine dayanan açıklamalar sunduğu ve çocuklarının sorularını işbirliği kurarak yanıtlamaya çalıştıkları, özel yetenekli olarak tanılanmayan çocukların annelerinin ise çocuklarının sorularını örneklerle açıklayarak cevapladıkları görülmektedir. Anne etkileşiminin çocuğun bilişsel gelişim yollarını nasıl şekillendirebileceğine dikkat çeken bu çalışma özel yetenekliliğin ekolojik yönüne katkıda bulunmaktadır. Anne-çocuk ilişkisindeki soru-cevap iletişiminin iç içe geçmiş dinamiklerine ilişkin değerli bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Soru sorma stratejisi
• yanıt verme stratejisi
• gelişimsel özel yeteneklilik
• anne tarafından etkileşim
• görüşme
• tematik analiz

A Comparative Analysis of Questioning and Responding Strategies Used by Mothers of Gifted and Typically Developing Children

Abstract

This study explored differences in questioning and responding strategies used by mothers of children identified and not identified as gifted, examining the dynamic of question-answer communication within the mother-child relationship. Employing a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 mothers from Türkiye, comprising 19 with children identified as gifted and 25 with children not identified as gifted. The findings show that mothers of children identified as gifted mostly use hypothesis, interpretation, and reflective question types for their children, whereas mothers of children not identified as gifted mostly use inference and interpretation question types. Regarding responding strategies, mothers of children identified as gifted mostly provide explanations grounded in cause-and-effect relationships and offer collaborative exploration to address their children’s questions. On the other hand, mothers of children not identified as gifted mostly address their children’s questions by explaining with examples. This research substantially contributes to the ecological aspect of giftedness by demonstrating how maternal questioning and responding strategies can distinctively shape the child’s cognitive developmental paths. This research provides invaluable insights into the complex dynamics of question-response communication in mother-child relationships.

Keywords

• Questioning strategy
• responding strategy
• developmental giftedness
• maternal interaction
• interview
• thematic analysis

References

1. Ackerman, P. L. (2018). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 191-210). Cambridge University Press.
2. Alexander, K., Gonzalez, C. H., Vermette, P. J., & Di Marco, S. (2022). Questions in secondary classrooms: Toward a theory of questioning. Theory and Research in Education, 20(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211043020
3. Al-Shabatat, A. M., Abbas, M., & Ismail, H. N. (2009). The direct and indirect effects of environmental factors on nurturing intellectual giftedness. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 121–131. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ877944.pdf
4. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
5. Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.
6. Aspesi, C. C., & Fleith, D. S. (2006). Family processes and development of giftedness. Gifted Education International, 20(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429406021001
7. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3
8. Barbey, A. K., Colom, R., Paul, E., Forbes, C., Krueger, F., Goldman, D., & Grafman, J. (2014). Preservation of general intelligence following traumatic brain injuiry: Contributions of the Met66 brain-derived neurotrophic factor. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088733

9. Berk, L. E. (2008). Infants, children, and adolescents. Pearson.
10. Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013844
11. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. McKay.
12. Bornstein, M. H. (2015). Children’s parents. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 55-134). Wiley.
13. Bornstein, M. H., Tal, J., Rahn, C., Galperin, C. Z., P^echeux, M.-G., Lamour, M., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1992). Functional analysis of the contents of maternal speech to infants of 5 and 13 months in four cultures: Argentina, France, Japan, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.593
14. British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research, third edition, London. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2011.
15. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 723-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
16. Busch, J.T.A., Willard, A.K., Legare, C.H. (2018). Explanation Scaffolds Causal Learning and Problem Solving in Childhood. In Saylor, M., Ganea, P. (Eds.), Active learning from infancy to childhood. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77182-3_7
17. Chouinard, M. M. (2007). Children's questions: A mechanism for cognitive development: III. Diary study of children's questions. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2007.00415.x
18. Clark, B. (2008). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (7th ed.). Pearson.
19. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. (2003). Handbook of gifted education. Pearson Education.
20. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2015). Five strategies for questioning with intention. Questioning for Learning 73(1), 66–69. https://nwrpdp.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/5-strategies-for-questioning-with-intention-el.pdf
21. Costa, A.L., & Presseisen, B. (1985). A glossary of thinking skills. In A.L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
23. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. (5th ed). Pearson Education.
24. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
25. Dieterich, S. E., Assel, M. A., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., & Landry, S. H. (2006). The impact of early maternal verbal scaffolding and child language abilities on later decoding and reading comprehension skills. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.003
26. Engel, S. (2011). Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115
27. Ervin-Tripp, S., & Miller, W. (1977). Early discourse: Some questions about questions. In M. M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Interaction, conversation, and the development of language (pp. 9–25). Wiley.
28. Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
29. Feldhusen, J. (1994). Thinking skills and curriculum development. In J. VanTassel-Baska, (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (pp. 301–324). Allyn and Bacon.
30. Ferreira, J. F. C., & Fleith, D. S. (2012). Characteristics and dynamics of the family of talented. Estudos de Psicologia, 17(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2012000100003
31. Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult–child conversation. Child Development, 80(1), 1592– 1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01356.x
32. Gagne, F. (2005). From gifts to talents. The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). Cambridge University. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/conceptionsofgiftedness/9C25A00D5B1C48D12D2D45C11B2DF5A9
33. Gallagher, J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child. Allyn and Bacon.
34. Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. Guilford Press.
35. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508-517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508
36. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children. (2nd ed.). Routledge.
37. Haden, C. A., Cohen, T., Uttal, D. H., & Marcus, M. (2015). Building learning: Narrating and transferring experiences in a children’s museum. In D. Sobel & J. Jipson (Eds.), Cognitive development in museum settings: Relating research and practice (pp. 84–103). Routledge.
38. Hill, W. D., Davies, G., Van De Lagemaat, L. N., Christoforou, A., Marioni, R. E., Fernandes, C. P., et al. (2014). Human cognitive ability is influenced by genetic variation in components of postsynaptic signalling complexes assembled by NMDA receptors and MAGUK proteins. Translational Psychiatry, 4(1), e341. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2013.114
39. Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002
40. Kirca Demirbaga, K. (2018). A comparative analysis: Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Montessori’s theory. Annual review of education, communication & language sciences, 15(1), 113-126. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kubra-Kirca-Demirbaga-2/publication/329921672_A_COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS_VYGOTSKY'S_SOCIOCULTURAL_THEORY_AND_MONTESSORI'S_THEORY/links/5c238d55a6fdccfc706b0876/A-COMPARATIVE-ANALYSIS-VYGOTSKYS-SOCIOCULTURAL-THEORY-AND-MONTESSORIS-THEORY.pdf
41. Kurkul, K. E., & Corriveau, K. H. (2018). Question, explanation, follow-up: A mechanism for learning from others? Child Development, 89(1), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12726
42. Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002193
43. Legare, C. H., Sobel, D. M., & Callanan, M. (2017). Causal learning is collaborative: Examining explanation and exploration in social contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1548–1554. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1351-3
44. Letzter, F. (1982). Meeting the special needs of the gifted and creative student in the world history classroom. Social Education, 46(1), 195–199. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ258669
45. Lyman, F. T. (1987). Think trix: A classroom tool for thinking in response to reading. Reading Issues and Practices 4(1), 15–18. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Think+trix%3A+A+classroom+tool+for+thinking+in+response+to+reading&author
46. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. PRO-ED.
47. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2017-2018). Bilim ve sanat merkezleri ögrenci tanılama kılavuzu [The student identification guide for science and art centers]. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_10/28150742_2017-2018_bilsem_tanilama_kilavuzu.pdf
48. Melhuish, E., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Phan, M. (2008). Effects of home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x
49. Mermelshtine, R. (2017). Parent-child learning interactions: A review of the literature on scaffolding. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12147
50. Morrow, L. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 76(4), 221-230. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27539975
51. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood giftedness to adult creative productiveness: Psychological characteristics and social supports. Roeper Review, 23(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554068
52. Plucker, J. A., Peters, S. J., & Schmalensee, S. (2017). Reducing excellence gaps: A research-based model. Gifted Child Today, 40(4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517723949
53. Pollack, H. (1988). Questioning strategies to encourage critical thinking. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 297 210).
54. Rowe, M. L., Leech, K. A., & Cabrera, N. (2017). Going beyond input quantity: Why questions matter for toddlers’ language and cognitive development. Cognitive Science, 41, 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12349
55. Schwartz, D. L., Tsang, J. M., & Blair, K. P. (2016). The ABC’ of how we learn: 26 scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them. W.W. Norton.
56. Shaunessy, E. (2000). Techniques questioning in the gifted classroom? Gifted Child Today, 23(5), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2000-752
57. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Love Publishing Company.
58. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318658
59. Stoeger, H., Steinbach, J., Obergriesser, S., & Matthes, B. (2014). What is more important for fourth-grade primary school students for transforming their potential into achievement: The individual or the environmental box in multidimensional conceptions of giftedness? High Ability Studies, 25(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.914381
60. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. (3rd ed). Pearson Education.
61. Vermette, P. J. (2009). Engaging teens in their own learning: 8 keys to student success. Eye on Education.
62. Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/27542373
63. Voss, M. (1987). Questioning strategies for parents. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 1-2. https://www.mpsaz.org/gtp/resources/parents/files/questioning_strategies_for_parents.pdf
64. Walker, S. Y. (2002). The survival guide for parents of gifted kids: How to understand, live with, and stick up for your gifted child. Free Spirit Publishing.
65. Watson, L. (2018). Questioning the questions. The Philosopher 107(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878521104302
66. Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727-747). Academic Press.
67. Weissler, K., & Landau, E. (1993). Characteristics of families with no, one, or more than one gifted child. The Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9915550
68. Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children's vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.265
69. White, B. L., Kaban, B. T., & Attanucci, J. S. (1979). The origins of human competence: Final report of the Harvard preschool project. Heath.
70. Will, H. (1987). Asking good follow-up questions. Gifted Child Today, 10(4), 32. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758701000417
71. Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
72. Wolf, D. (1987). The art of questioning. The Journal of State Government, 60(2), 28-31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED304681.pdf
73. Zhao, M., Kong, L., & Qu, H. (2014). A systems biology approach to identify intelligence quotient score-related genomic regions, and pathways relevant to potential therapeutic treatments. Science Reports, 4(1), 4176. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04176
74. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 411–436). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455
75. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2