Özel Yetenekli Öğrencileri Genel Eğitim Sınıflarında Destekleyecek Sınıf Öğretmeninin Sahip Olması Gereken Yeterlikler: Nitel Bir Araştırma

Yıl 2021, , 460 - 479, 25.05.2021

İbrahim Akar

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.813339

Cited By: 3

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, özel yetenekli öğrencileri genel eğitim sınıflarında destekleyecek sınıf öğretmenlerinin sahip olmaları gereken yeterliklerini araştırmak ve ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu temel amaca ulaşmak için araştırmacı, nitel araştırma desenine ilişkin sırasıyla bir durum çalışması ve bir eylem araştırması gerçekleştirmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları beş sınıf öğretmeni, özel yetenekli öğrenciler, ebeveynleri, okul yöneticileri ve diğer sınıf ve ilkokul öğretmenleridir. Durum çalışması ve eylem araştırması aşamalarında veri toplamak için yapılandırılmamış görüşmeler, gözlemler, odak grup görüşmeleri, dokümanlar ve ürünlerden faydalanılmıştır. Araştırma sürecinde yaklaşık 44 saat görüşme, 70 ders saati gözlem ile 311 adet doküman ve/veya ürün toplanmıştır. Toplanan veriler içerik analizi ile betimleyici analize tabi tutulmuştur. İçerik analizi için hesaplanan kodlayıcılar arası güvenirlik katsayısı 0,78 olarak bulunmuştur. Yapılan analiz sonucunda dört farklı aşamada sekiz farklı yeterlik alanı altında otuz dört yeterlik ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bulgular ilgili alan yazın ışığında tartışılmış; uygulamaya ve sonraki araştırmalara yönelik bazı önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özel yetenek, Genel Eğitim Sınıfı, Kaynaştırma, Yeterlik, Sınıf Öğretmeni

Competencies for a Classroom Teacher to Support Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom: A Qualitative Research

Öz

The purpose of this research was to research and reveal the competencies for classroom teachers to support gifted students in the regular classrooms. In order to achieve this main purpose, researcher conducted a case study and an action research of the qualitative research design, respectively. Participants of the study were five classroom teachers, their gifted students, parents of the gifted, school administrators and other classroom and elementary school teachers. Unstructured interviews, observations, focus group interviews, documents and products used to collect data during the case study and action research phases. Approximately 44 hours of interviews, 70 course hours of observations and 311 documents and/or products collected during case study and action research processes. Content analysis and descriptive analysis were run to analyze the data. Calculated inter-coder reliability coefficient for content analysis was found to be .78. Overall analysis revealed thirty-four competencies under eight different competency areas on four different stages. Findings were discussed with regard to related literature and recommendations for practitioners and for further research were presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gifted Student, Regular Classroom, Inclusion, Competency, Classroom Teacher

Kaynakça

• Akar, I. (2015). Üstün yetenekli öğrencileri genel eğitim sınıfında destekleyecek bir sınıf öğretmeninin sahip olması gereken yeterlikler [Competencies for a classroom teacher to support gifted students in the regular classroom]. Unpublished dissertation. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Akar, I. (2015). Üstün yetenekli öğrencileri genel eğitim sınıfında destekleyecek bir sınıf öğretmeninin sahip olması gereken yeterlikler [Competencies for a classroom teacher to support gifted students in the regular classroom]. Unpublished dissertation. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Akar, I. & Sengil-Akar, S. (2012). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of giftedness. Kastamonu Education Journal, 20(2), 423-436.
• Akar, I. & Uluman, M. (2013). Elementary education teachers’ accuracy in nominating the gifted student. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(3), 199-212.
• Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34(5), 317-325.
• Blumen-Pardo, S. (2002). Effects of a teacher training workshop on creativity, cognition, and school achievement in gifted and non-gifted second-grade students in Lima, Peru. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 47-58.
• Borland, J. H. (2003). Rethinking gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• Çelikdelen, H. (2010). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinde bilim birimlerinden destek alan üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin kendi okullarında fen ve teknoloji dersinde karşılaştıkları güçlüklerin değerlendirilmesi. [The evaluation of the difficulties of talented students who face during the science and technology lessons in their school, are enrolled in science and art centers]. Unpublished thesis. Selcuk University, Konya.
• Darga, H. (2010). Brigance K&1 screen II ile ilköğretim 1. sınıfta saptanan üstün yetenekli çocuklara ve sınıf arkadaşlarına uygulanan zenginleştirme programının çoklu zekâ alanlarındaki performans düzeylerini arttırmaya etkisi. Unpublished dissertation. Gazi University, Ankara.
• Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3th ed.). Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• Dimitriadis, C. (2012). How are schools in England addressing the needs of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A review of practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), pp 59-76.
• Eakin, J. R. (2007). How regular classroom teachers view the teaching of gifted students?. Unpublished Dissertation. Walden University.
• Ekinci, A. (2002). İlköğretim okullarının üstün yetenekli çocukların eğitimine elverişlilik düzeyi ile ilgili öğretmen görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi (Batman İli Örneği) [Assesment of teachers views related to primary schools feasibility level on educating the gifted (Batman province sample)]. Unpublished Thesis. Dicle University, Diyarbakir.
• Fahy, P. J. (2001). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(2).
• Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 547–552). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Ford, D. Y. (2003). Two other wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education’s unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283-291.
• Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Gokdere, M., & Ayvacı, H. S. (2004). Determination of primary teachers’ knowledge level about giftedness concept. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 17-26.
• Hultgren, H. W., & Seeley, K. R. (1982). Training teachers of the gifted: A research monograph on teacher competencies. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Gail, R. R. & Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), p.45-63.
• Karnes, F. A., Stephens, K. R., & Whorton, J. E. (2000). Certification and specialized competencies for teachers in gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 22(3), 201-202.
• Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field methods, 12(3), 179-194.
• Maker, C. (1975). Training teachers for the gifted and talented: A comparison of models. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
• Matthews, D. & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 3, 256-271.
• Mazza-Davies, L. (2008). Personalizing learning: Exploring the principles and processes of the IEP for young, gifted readers. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. The University of Waikato.
• MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı). (2003). Milli eğitim bakanlığı ilköğretim kurumları yönetmeliği. Tebliğler Dergisi, 225.
• MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı). (2006). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Resmi Gazete, 26184; değ. 2012-28360.
• MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı). (2007). Milli eğitim bakanlığı bilim ve sanat merkezleri yönergesi. Tebliğler Dergisi, 2593; değ. 2009-2618.
• MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı). (2008). Öğretmen yeterlikleri: Öğretmenlik mesleği genel ve özel alan yeterlikleri. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Moratta-Garcia, C. (2011). Teachers use of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Southern California.
• Mosse, J. L. (2003). The nature of gifted education in the regular education classrooms in the elementary schools of a rural western Pennsylvania school district: Implications for a staff development program. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
• Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J.C. & Dixon, F.A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers' perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 30(4), 479-499.
• Palladino, C. (2008). Teachers’ perspectives on educating the gifted learner within the regular education classroom. Unpublished Dissertation. Walden University.
• Peine, M. E., & Coleman, L. J. (2010). The phenomenon of waiting in class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(2), 220-244.
• Perez, B. B. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards inclusion of gifted students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. The University of Texas-Pan American.
• Ray, K. E. (2009). Competencies for teachers of gifted. In Kerr, B. (ed). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (pp. 164-165). Sage Publications, USA.
• 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.
• Riley, T. L. (2011). Teaching gifted students in the inclusive classroom. The practical Strategies in Gifted Education. Texas: Prufrock Press.
• Rohrer, J. C. (1995). Primary teacher conceptions of giftedness: Image, evidence and nonevidence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(3), 269-283.
• Schack, G. D., & Starko, A. J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 346-363.
• Seeley, K. (1998). Facilitators for talented students. In Vantassel-Baska, J. (Ed). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3th ed). (pp.373-488). Denver, Love Publishing.
• Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 88-94.
• Tekbaş, D. (2004). Kaynaştırma ortamında üstün zekâlı çocuğa uygulanan zenginleştirme programı hakkında örnek olay incelemesi ve programın etkililiğine ilişkin bir araştırma [An analysis of a sample incident on the enriched programme applied to a gifted child in a mainstreaming environment and a research on the efficiency of the programme]. Unpublished thesis. Gazi University, Ankara.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211-217.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 182-205.
• Yang, Y., Gentry, M., & Choi, Y. O. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(3), 270-287.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3th ed). USA: Sage Publications.