Üstün Zekalı Öğrenciler Tarafından Tasarlanan Ürünlerde Yaratıcılığın Değerlendirilmesi: Sosyal Göstergebilimsel Çokmodlu Bir Bakış Açısı

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 40-2 Sayı: 1, 75 - 100, 10.10.2023

Zekai Ayık

https://doi.org/10.52597/buje.1109543

Öz

Yaratıcılık, üstün zekalılığın temel bir özelliğidir ve bu nedenle yaratıcılığın değerlendirilmesi önemli bir yere sahiptir. Sosyo-kültürel bakış açısı yaratıcı ürünün ortaya çıktığı sosyal çevrenin tüm unsurlarını dikkate alır ve bu ürünün değerlendirilmesinde bu unsurları dikkate almanın gereğini vurgular. Üstün zekalı öğrencilerin sınıflarını sosyo-kültürel bir bağlam olarak ele alan bu çalışma, sınıfın çokmodlu söylem pratiklerini göz önünde bulundurarak üstün zekalı öğrenciler tarafından tasarlanan tasarımlardaki yaratıcılığın değerlendirilmesine sistemik bir yaklaşım getirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel betimsel bir yöntem kullanılmış ve on altı beşinci sınıf üstün zekalı öğrenci araştırmaya katılmıştır. Veriler, katılımcı tasarımları aracılığıyla toplanmış, çokmodlu ve göstergesel zenginlik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, analiz edilen metinlerin çoğunlukla göstergesel açıdan zengin bulunduğunu ve değerlendirme aracının üstün zekalı öğrencilerin fen sınıfının söylem doğasına göre tasarımlardaki yaratıcılığı değerlendirmede etkili olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çokmodlu tasarım, sosyal göstergebilim, tasarım, üstün zekalı öğrenciler, yaratıcılık

Assessment of Creativity in Artifacts Designed by Gifted Students: A Social Semiotic Multimodal Perspective

Öz

Creativity is a central trait of giftedness, making the assessment of creativity an essential endeavor. A socio-cultural perspective takes into account all aspects of the social environment in which creative products emerge and underscores the necessity of considering these aspects when assessing such products. Regarding gifted classroom as a socio-cultural context, this study aims to introduce a systemic approach to evaluating creativity in designs created by gifted students, considering the multimodal discourse practices within the classroom. A qualitative descriptive method was employed, involving 16 fifth-grade gifted students in the study. Data were collected through participant design of artifacts and analyzed using multimodal and semiotic richness analysis. The results indicate that the analyzed texts are predominantly rich in semiotic aspects and demonstrate the effectiveness of the evaluation tool in assessing creativity in designs based on the discourse nature of the gifted students' science classroom.

Anahtar Kelimeler

artifacts, creativity, gifted students, multimodal design, social semiotics

Kaynakça

• Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20265
• Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer.
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder.
• Andersen, M. F., & Munksby, N. (2018). Didactical Design Principles to Apply When Introducing Student-generated Digital Multimodal Representations in the Science Classroom. Designs for Learning, 10(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.100
• Azevedo, F. S. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 443–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00053-0
• Bailey, L. M., Morris, L. G., Thompson, W. D., Feldman, S. B., & Demetrikopoulos, M. K. (2016). Historical Contribution of Creativity to Development of Gifted Science Education in Formal and Informal Learning Environments. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 3–14). Sense Publishers.
• Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Hampton Press.
• Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_3
• Besançon, M. (2013). Creativity, giftedness, and education. Gifted and Talented International, 28(1–2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678410
• 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
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE Publications.
• Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. In Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.
• Clifford, M. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten to twelve-year-old students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00875.x
• Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Belknap Press.
• Cox, M. (2005). The pictorial world of the child. Cambridge University Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge University Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge University Press.
• Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever (3rd ed.). Kendall/Hunt.
• Demetrikopoulos, M. K., & Pecore, J. L. (2016). Introduction to the interplay between creativity and giftedness in science. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. ix-xii). Sense Publishers.
• DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7
• Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press.
• Gebre, E. H., & Polman, J. L. (2016). Developing young adults’ representational competence through infographic-based science news reporting. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2667–2687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1258129
• Ginsburg, G. P. (1980). Epilogue: A conception of situated action. In M. Brenner (Ed.), The structure of action (pp. 313–350). Blackwell.
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 41(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00445.x
• Glǎveanu, V. P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.13
• Glǎveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528
• Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
• Hofstadter, D. R. (1985). Metamagical themas: Questing for the essence of mind and pattern. Penguin Books.
• Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
• Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001a). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753
• Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of Giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 71–93). Springer.
• Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. Routledge.
• Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153–161). Routledge.
• Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation
• Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multimedia literacy demands of the science curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 3(10), 247–271.
• Lubart, T., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). Evaluation du potentiel créatif (EPoC). [Evaluation of potential creativity]. Hogrefe.
• Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de la colin., créativité. [Psychology of creativity]. Armand.
• Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77–87.
• Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making. In Sawyer et al. (Eds.) Creativity and development, (pp. 61–90). Oxford University Press.
• Newfield, D. (2009). Transmodal semiosis in classrooms: Case studies from South Africa [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of London Institute of Education.
• O’Grady, J. v., & O’Grady, K. v. (2008). The information design handbook. OH: How Books.
• O’Halloran, Kay L. (2007). Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF–MDA): Approach to mathematics, grammar, and literacy. In Anne McCabe, Mick O’Donnell & Rachel Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education, (pp. 77–102). Continuum.
• Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Stenberg, J. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Who’s creative? (pp. 153–167). American Psychological Association.
• Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
• Plucker, J. A., Guo, J., & Makel, M. C. (2018). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 81–100). Springer Cham.
• Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). Cambridge University Press.
• Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: An introduction. In Research in Science Education (Vol. 40, Issue 1, pp. 1–3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9153-x
• Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–280). Cambridge University Press.
• Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–311.
• Rui, N., & Feldman, J. (2012). IRR (Inter-Rater Reliability) of a COP (Classroom Observation Protocol)--A critical appraisal. Online Submission, 3, 305–315.
• Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 11(4), 212–218.
• Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative Research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
• Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology—What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–43). Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate stem (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
• Starko, J. A. (2014). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. In contemporary debates in education studies (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315563718-5
• Stein, P. (2003). The Olifantsvlei Fresh Stories Project: Multimodality, creativity and fixing in the semiotic chain. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 123–138). Peter Lang.
• Stenberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.
• Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01223.x
• Tang, K. S., & Danielsson, K. (2018). Global developments in literacy research for science education. In Global developments in literacy research for science education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8
• Tang, K., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students’ multimodal construction of the work–Energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.508899
• Torrance, P. E. (1976). Tests de pensée créative. Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
• Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6
• Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representational and the Scientific Understanding: Vol. XLVIII. Reidel Publishing Company.
• Wertsch, J. v., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 162–182). Cambridge University Press.
• West, E. A., Paul, C. A., Webb, D., & 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
• Yeo, J., & Nielsen, W. (2020). Multimodal science teaching and learning. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1752043