How is the Environment in the Mind of a Gifted Elementary School Student? A Phenomenology Study

Öz

The purpose of this phenomenology study is to elicit and understand the gifted elementary school students’ opinions about environment. A total of three gifted elementary school students selected by means of the homogenous sampling technique participated in the current study conducted in line with the phenomenology design of quantitative research. The data were collected through the Draw-An-Environment Test and Rubric and one-to-one interviews conducted with the students. In the analysis of the collected data, textural and structural descriptions were used. In light of the findings of the current study, it can be said that the gifted students mainly used biotic elements in their drawings. In addition to this, the findings obtained from the drawings and interviews have revealed that the gifted students have a limited and anthropocentric perception of the environment. On the basis of the findings of the current study, it can be suggested that the number of environment-centred studies including gifted students as their participants should be increased and the environmental education to be given to gifted students should be focused on the inculcation of ecocentric conception of the environment in these students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Giftedness,gifted student,environment,phenomenology

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski's overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19(4), 229-236.
2. Ahi, B., Balcı, S., & Alisinanoğlu, F. (2017). Exploring Turkish preservice teachers' mental models of the environment: Are they related to gender and academic level?. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(3), 182-195.
3. Alerby, E. (2000). A way of visualising children’s and young people’s thoughts about the Environment: A study of drawings. Environmental Education Research, 6(3), 205-222.
4. Anderson, K. (2000). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.
5. Aydin, F., Coskun, M., Kaya, H. & Erdonmez, İ. (2011). Gifted students attitudes towards environment: A case study from Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(7), 1876-1883.
6. Barraza, L. & Cauron, A. D. (2004). How values in education affect children’s environmental knowledge. Journal of Biological Education, 39(1), 18-23.
7. Bouchard, L. L. (2004). An instrument for the measure of Dabrowskian overexcitabilities to identify gifted elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 339-350.
8. Bouchet, N., & Falk, R. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(4), 260-267.

9. Boulter, J. C. & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), in Developing models in science education, (pp.41-58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10. Brody, L. E. & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT:D4 model to develop their talents. In
11. Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 20-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Colaizzi, P., F. (1978). Psychological reserach as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Vaile & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Creswell, J., W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research methods: Choosing among five approaches. (3rd edition). Thounsand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Creswell, J., W. & Miller, D., L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
15. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration.Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
16. Esen, T. (2011). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin çevreye yönelik bilgi ve tutumlarının incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Adıyaman Üniversitesi.
17. Falk, R. F., Piechowski, M. M., & Lind, S. (1994). Criteria for rating the intensity of overexcitabilities. Unpublished manual, Sociology Department, University of Akron.
18. Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise and creative achievement. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp.64-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gallagher, S. A. (1985). A comparison of the concept of overexcitabilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth‐grade students. Roeper Review, 8(2), 115-119.
20. Hartsell, B. (2006). Teaching toward compassion: Environmental values education for secondary students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(4), 265-271.
21. Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
22. Johnsen, S. K. (2018). Definitions, models and characteristics of gifted students. In Johnsen, S. K. (Ed). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (3rd ed.) (pp.1-22).Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Prufrock Press, Inc..
23. Marland, S. P. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented - Volume 1: Report to the congress of the United States by the U.S. commissioner of education. Washington, DC: Office of Education (DHEW).
24. Matthews, D. J. & Foster, J. (2005). Being smart about gifted children: A guidebook for parents and educators. Scottsdale, Arizona: Great Potential Press.
25. Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 68-87.
26. Miles, M., B., & Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. (2nd edition). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
27. Miller, N. B., Silvermany, L. K., & Falk, R. F. (1995). Emotional development, intellectual ability, and gender. Talents and Gifts, 18(1), 20-38.
28. Moseley, C., Desjean-Perrotta, B., & Utley, J. (2010). The draw an environment test rubric (DAET-R): Exploring preservice teachers’ mental models of the environment. Environmental Education Research, 16(2), 189-208.
29. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Özsoy, S. (2012). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin çevre algılarının çizdikleri resimler aracılığıyla incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(2), 1117-1139.
31. Özsoy, S. & Ahi, B. (2014). İlkokul öğrencilerinin geleceğe yönelik çevre algılarının çizdikleri resimler aracılığı ile belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(4), 1-26.
32. Piechowski, M. M. (1997). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intrapersonal intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 366–381). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33. Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 80-88.
34. Piechowski, M. M., & Miller, N. B. (1995). Assessing developmental potential in gifted children: A comparison of methods. Roeper Review, 17(3), 176-180.
35. Piechowski, M. M., Silverman, L. K., & Falk, R. F. (1985). Comparison of intellectually and artistically gifted on five dimensions of mental functioning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60(2), 539-549.
36. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model of creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds). Conceptions of giftedness (pp.53-92). New York, Cambridge University Press.
37. Samuelsson, I. P. & Kaga, Y. (2008). Introduction. (Eds. I. P. Samuelsson & Y. Kaga). The contribution of early childhood education to a sustainable society. Paris: UNESCO Press.
38. Saricam, H., & Sahin, S. H. (2015). The relationship between the environmental awareness, environmental attitude, curiosity and exploration in highly gifted students: Structural equation modelling. Educational Process: International Journal, 4 (1-2), 7-17.
39. Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, M. & Harbor, J. (2007). Students’ mental models of the environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 327-348.
40. Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3–25). Denver, CO: Love.
41. Sontay, G., Gökdere, M., & Usta, E. (2014). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerle akranlarının çevresel davranışlarının karşılaştırmalı incelenmesi. Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 4(2), 90.
42. Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 88-94.
43. Terman, L. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Vol.1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
44. Thunberg, G. (2019). The disarming case to act right now on climate (https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate/transcript adresinden 19.10.2019 tarihinde erişildi).
45. Türkiye Çevre Vakfı. (2001). Ansiklopedik çevre sözlüğü. Ankara: Türkiye Çevre Vakfı.
46. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2019). İl göstergeleri. 02.10.2019 tarihinde tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=istgosterge adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
47. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. NY: New York University Press.
48. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Domain-specific giftedness: Applications in school and life. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds). Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed) (pp.358-376). New York, Cambridge University Press.
49. Witty, P. (1958). Who are the gifted? Role of gifted persons in social progress. In Henry, N.B. (Ed.). Education for the gifted (pp. 41-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Yakmaci‐Guzel, B., & Akarsu, F. (2006). Comparing overexcitabilities of gifted and non‐gifted 10th grade students in Turkey. High Ability Studies, 17(1), 43-56.