Examination of EPGBU model proposed for academically gifted student with structural equation model

Abstract

The fact that gifted education programs have certain standards, include evaluation, and are based on theoretical foundations ensure that these programs are real programs. Therefore, it is necessary to test the effectiveness of the programs put forward for gifted education and to determine their social validity. The Education Program for Gifted Bridge with University (EPGBU), developed by Tortop (2013), is a university-based program aimed at raising gifted students in the academic field. This research is in a descriptive survey model, and the characteristics of gifted students studying at the Science and Art Center in Turkey in the components of the EPGBU model were analyzed with the Structural Equation Model (SEM). EPGBU model values; χ2=4.328, df=5, p=.000; RMSEA, 0.000; χ2/df=,866; NFI=.951; CFI=.50; GFI=0.983; PCLOSE= .000 was found. Accordingly, it is seen that the EPGBU model is a fit model.

Keywords

• education program for gifted
• EPGBU model
• Gifted students
• Structural Equation Model

References

1. Akarsu, F. (2004). Üstün yetenekliler. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı (Gifted). Ed.: Mustafa Ruhi Şirin, Adnan Kulaksızoğlu & Ahmet Emre Bilgili, Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları, (s. 516).
2. Arbuckle, J.L. (2012). IBM SPSS Amos 19 User’s guide. http://amosdevelopment.com/download/amos.pdf
3. Bryne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd Ed.: Routledge Taylor, Francis Group.
4. Buyukozturk, S., Cakmak, E. Kilic, A., Ozcan, E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Scientific research methods), Pegem Akademi.
5. Byrne, B.M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Second Edition. Mahwah, LEA.
6. Clark, K.R. (2013). Examining the effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and performance in the secondary mathematics classroom: An action research study. Doctoral Thesis.
7. Conley, A.M., Pintrich, P.R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004
8. Distefano, S., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 225-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300303

9. Enger, S.K., & Yager, R.E. (1998). The Iowa assessment handbook. The Iowa- SS&C Project, Science Education Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
10. Gokdere, M., & Cepni, S. (2005). Üstün yeteneklilerin Fen öğretmenlerine yönelik hazırlanan bir hizmet içi eğitimin çalışmasının öğrenme ortamına yansımaları. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 204-217.
11. Hoe, S.L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83. https://jaqm.ro/issues/volume-3,issue-1/pdfs/hoe.pdf
12. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/297019805.pdf
13. Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. Edited by Tinsley, H.E.A., Brown S.D. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modelling. Academic Press, (p. 465 – 497).
14. Hu, W., & Adey, P.A. (2002). Scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education. 24(4), 389-404.
15. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut‐off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1‐55.
16. Kadayifci, H. (2008). Yaratıcı düşünmeye dayalı öğretim modelinin öğrencilerin maddelerin ayrılması ile ilgili kavramları anlamalarına ve bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi (The effect of an instructional model based on creative thinking on students' conceptual understanding of separation of matter subject and their scientific creativity). Doctoral dissertation Gazi University, Ankara, Turkiye.
17. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, The Guildford Press.
18. Koray, O., Koksal, M.S., Ozdemir, M., & Presley, A.I. (2007). The effect of creative and critical thinking based laboratory applications on academic achievement and science process skills. Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 377-389. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/90994
19. Kurt, F. (2009). Investigating students' epistemologcal beliefs through gender, grade level, and fields of study. Master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkiye.
20. Ministry of National Education of Turkiye (MoNET) (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji dersi öğretim programı (Elementary Science and Technology course curriculum). Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
21. Nash, D. (2001). Enter the mentor. Parenting for High Potential, 12, 18-21.
22. Ozbay, H.E. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarının bilimsel epistemolojik inançlar ve zihinsel risk alma davranışları ile ilişkisinin incelenmesi (Investigation of association among scientific epistemological beliefs, intellectual risk taking and science achievement of middle school students). Doctoral Thesis. Inonu University, Malatya, Turkiye.
23. Ozkok, A. (2005). Disiplinler arası yaklaşıma dayalı yaratıcı problem çözme öğretim programının yaratıcı problem çözme becerisine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 159-167.
24. Sak, U. (2009). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programları. Maya Akademi Yayınevi.
25. Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekâlılar özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri. Maya Akademi Yayınevi.
26. Sak, U. (2011). Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitim Programları Modeli (ÜYEP) ve sosyal geçerliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 213-229. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/893
27. Schreglmann, S. (2016). Konu temelli eleştirel düşünme öğretimi özelliğine sahip eğitsel arayüz ile desteklenmiş eğitim yazılımının akademik başarı, düşünme eğilimi ve düzeyine olan etkisi (The effect of instructional software packages that was supported by educational interface with subject based critical thinking teaching feature on the critical thinking skill and the academic achievement in the science course). Master Thesis. Cukurova University. Adana, Turkiye.
28. Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Taylor and Francis Group.
29. Schwartz, L.S., & Baer, D.M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art?, Journal of Applied behavior Analysis, 24(2), 189-204.
30. Serin, O. Serin, N.B., & Saygili, G. (2010). İlköğretim düzeyindeki çocuklar için problem çözme envanterinin geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 446-458
31. Siegle, D. Developing for mentorhip programs for gifted students. TX. Prufrock Press, Inc.
32. Single, P.B., & Muller, C.B. (2001). When email and mentoring unite: the implementation of a nationwide electronic mentoring program. Ed.: Linda Kyle Stromei, Creating mentoring and coaching programs (Alexandria, VA, American Society for Training and Development), p. 107-122.
33. Sahin, F. (2014). Yaratıcılık–zekâ ilişkisi: Yeni deliller, İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1516- 1530. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280927332_Yaraticilik_-_Zeka_Iliskisi_Yeni_Deliller
34. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics, Harper Collins Publischer.
35. Torrance, E.P. (1984). Mentor relationship: How they aid creative achievement, endure, change and die. Bearly Limited.
36. Tortop, H.S., & Eker, C. (2014). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarında öz düzenlemeli öğrenme neden yer almalıdır?, Journal of Gifted Education Research, 2(1), 23-41. https://www.academia.edu/31830398/%C3%9Cst%C3%BCn_Yetenekliler_E%C4%9Fitim_Programlar%C4%B1nda_%C3%96z_d%C3%BCzenlemeli_%C3%96%C4%9Frenme_Neden_Yer_Almal%C4%B1d%C4%B1r
37. Tortop, H.S., & Ersoy, B. (2015). Üstün Yetenekliler Üniversite Köprüsü Eğitim Programı’na (ÜYÜKEP) katılan üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin sınıf öğretmenlerinin ÜYÜKEP hakkındaki görüşleri. Üstün Zekalılar Eğitimi ve Yaratıcılık Dergisi, 2(1), 17-24. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jgedc/issue/38679/449352
38. Tortop, H.S. (2013). A New model program for academically gifted students in Turkey: Overview of the education program for the gifted students’ bridge with university (EPGBU). Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist and Giftedness, 1(2), 21-31.
39. Tortop, H.S. (2014). Gifted students views about first stage of Education Program For Gifted Student’s Bridge with University (EPGBU). Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education TOJDE, 15(2), 62-74.
40. Tortop, H. S. (2015). Üstün zekâlılar eğitiminde farklılaştırılmış öğretim müfredat farklılaştırma modelleri. Genç Bilge.
41. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994). Science curriculum for the gifted. Ed.: Van Tassel- Baska, Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners, Needham Heights, Allyn and Bacon, p. 231-261.