Turkish gifted students’ interests of courses and inclations of the talent fields: Example of Science and Art Centers

Abstract

This study is carried out within the scope of aim to determine the areas and courses of interest of gifted and talented students, using a survey research model among quantitative research design. Within this scope, data was obtained from 370 gifted students using stratified purposive sampling method with electronic forms created in two parts via Microsoft Forms. Data analysis was carried out with SPSS 22 packet data analysis program. Descriptive statistics and difference tests were utilized in the analysis of the data. As a result of the study, it was found that gifted and talented students are most interested in courses of chemistry, informatics and mathematics while courses of history, literature and philosophy were the least favored. Other findings of the study are significant differences in course interest of gifted children obtained according to the variables of gender, duration of education in SAC, type of identification area in SAC and type of program in SAC.

Keywords

• Areas of interest
• courses interests
• gifted and talented student
• lessons

References

1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
2. Bakan, M. (2019). A study of developing course interest battery for gifted student [Unpublished master’s thesis], Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey.
3. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age. Learning & Leading With Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
4. Başar Daz, T. B., Karagölge, Z., & Ceyhun, İ. (2020). An investıgatıon of highly talented students' opinions about chemistry course: A sample of Erzurum SAC. Atatürk University Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, 41, 159-179. https://doi.org/10.33418/ataunikkefd.784362
5. Benbow, C.P. Lubinski, D., Shea, D.L., Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11 , 474-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00291
6. Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3402_2
7. Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in Math and Science: Do Mothers' Beliefs Matter 12 Years Later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97
8. Brigham, F. J. and Bakken, J. P. (2014). Assesment of individuals who are gifted and talented. In: A. F. Rotatori, J. P. Bakken and F. E. Obiakor (eds.). Gifted education: Current perspectives and issues. UK: Emerald, pp. 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-4013(2014)0000026002

9. Brown, E. F., & Stambaugh, T. L. (2014). Placement of students who are gifted. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Advances in Special Education. Vol. 26: Gifted education: Current perspectives and issues (pp. 41-69). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
10. Castellano, J. A. (2011). Cultural competency: Implications for educational and instructionalleaders in gifted education. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.),Special popula-tions in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds(pp. 383-400). Prufrock Press.
11. Clark, B. (2013). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at home (8th Ed.). Pearson.
12. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd Ed.). Pearson.
13. Çöllüoğlu Gülen, Ö. (2017). Analysis of gıfted students’ interest areas using data mining techniques [Unpublished doctoral disertation]. Gazi University, Ankara.
14. Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understand-ing gifted education. Teachers College Press.
15. Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Prufrock Press.
16. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th Ed.). Pearson.
17. Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education. Prufrock.
18. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw Hall.
19. Güven Yıldırım, E. & Köklükaya, A.N. (2016). Güven Yıldırım, E. & Köklükaya, A.N. (2016). Determination of primary and secondary school students’ interest level toward the science topics. Amasya Education Journal, 5(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17539/aej.20578
20. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549
21. Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001
22. Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls' interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00010-X
23. Kaplan, S. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. InF. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.),Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 107-132). Prufrock.
24. Kaplan, S., & Hertzog, N. B. (2016). Pedagogy for Early Childhood Gifted Education. Gifted Child Today, 39(3), 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516644637
25. Kelemen, G. (2020). Gifted children education in early childhood practical strategies. Journal Plus Education, 26(1), 165-170. https://doi>10.24250/JPE/1/2020/GK
26. Kenndy, D. M. (2002). Glimpses of a highly gifted child in a heterogeneous classroom. Roeper Review, 24(3), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554148
27. Kim, K. H., Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J. & Sriraman, B (Eds.) (2013). Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students: Research, theory, and practice. Sense Publishers.
28. Koshy, V. (2002). Teaching gifted children 4-7: A guide for teachers. David Fulton Publishers.
29. Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the student interest and engagement scales. Communication Methods and Measures, (6)2, 99-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679244
30. Meador, K. (1996). Meeting the needs of young gifted students. Childhood Education, 73(1), 6-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1996.10521891
31. National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] (2006). Early childhood: Creating contexts for individualized learning in early childhood education: Early childhood position statement. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Early%20Childhood%20Position%20Statement.pdf
32. National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC]. (2012).Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Author.
33. Němcová, M. (Ed.) (2016). Recognition and teaching gifted and talented children-good practice for Europe. Product of The Erasmus+ Project Talented Children. Retrieved from https://www.talentedchildrenproject.eu/images/zpravy/Recognition%20and%20Teaching%20Gifted.pdf
34. Nellis, L. M., & Gridley, B. E. (2000). Sociocultural Problem-Solving Skills in Preschoolers of High Intellectual Ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400104
35. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
36. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S. (2011). Gender and Other Group Differences in Performance on Off-Level Tests: Changes in the 21st Century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210382574
37. Öztürk, M., Akkan, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2014). An Investigation of Gifted Students' Perceptions towards the Concept of Mathematics. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 2(2), 49-57.
38. Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls' and boys' achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315834
39. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essential of gifted assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
40. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The Underachievement of Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
41. Renkin, J. G. (2016). Engaging and challenging gifted students. ASCD.
42. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). Cambridge University Press.
43. Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
44. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education [MNE] (2019a). 2019-2020 Centers for Science and Arts Student Identification Booklet. Retrieved from https://orgm.MNE.gov.tr/MNE_iys_dosyalar/2019_11/15173608_TanYlama_KYlavuzu__YeYitek_Ekli_2.pdf
45. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education [MNE] (2019b). Science and Arts Centers Directive. Retrieved from http://tebligler.MNE.gov.tr/index.php/tuem-sayilar/viewcategory/87-2019
46. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education [MNE] (2020). National education statistics. Retrieved from https://sgb.MNE.gov.tr/MNE_iys_dosyalar/2020_09/04144812_MNE_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2019_2020.pdf
47. Sak, U. (2014). Üstün zekâlılar: Özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri (4th ed.). Vize Yayıncılık.
48. Schreglmann, S., & Öztürk, F. K. (2018). An evaluation of gifted students’ perceptions on critical thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.463711
49. Tomlinson, C. (2005). Quality curriculum and ınstruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 160-166. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s15430421tip4402_10
50. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Commun. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215