Üstün Yetenekli ve Normal Gelişen Çocukların Sınıf İçi Etkinliklere Yönelik Görüşleri

Yıl 2021, , 368 - 382, 25.06.2021

Fatma Betül Şenol , Selda Koca

https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.732242

Öz

Çalışmada ilkokula devam eden üstün yetenekli ve normal gelişim gösteren çocukların sınıf içi etkinliklerine yönelik görüşlerinin belirlenmesi ve karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma betimsel nitelikte olup tarama modelinde bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 2019-2020 eğitim-öğretim yılı güz döneminde Afyonkarahisar Millî Eğitim Müdürlüğüne bağlı Bilim Sanat Merkezine ve ilkokullara devam eden 289 çocuk oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Sınıf Etkinliklerim Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde yüzde, frekans ve Mann Whitney U Testi kullanılmıştır. Ölçekten alınan puanlar üstün yetenekli çocuklarda 3,59-4,47 ve normal gelişim gösteren çocuklarda 3,79-4,11 arasındadır. Üstün yetenekli ve normal gelişen çocukların puanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık bulunmamıştır. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, sınıf etkinliklerinin hem üstün yetenekli çocuklar hem de normal gelişen çocukların gelişimlerini destekleyecek ve sınıf etkinliklerine yönelik algılarının olumlu olmasını sağlayacak şekilde yapılandırılması gerektiği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üstün Yetenekli, Sınıf Etkinlikleri, İlgi, Seçim, Sınırları Zorlama, Keyif

Perceptions of Gifted and Typical Developing Children on Class Activities

Öz

In the study, it was aimed to determine and compare the perceptions of gifted and typical developing children attending primary school towards class activities. This is a descriptive study designed in a scanning model. The study group of the research consists of 289 children attending Science and Art Centre (BİLSEM) and primary schools affiliated to Afyonkarahisar Provincial Directorate of National Education in the fall semester of the 2019-2020 academic year. My Class Activities Survey was used as the data collection tool. Percentage, frequency and Mann Whitney U Test were used in the analysis of the data. The scores obtained from the scale were found 3.59-4.47 in gifted children and 3.79-4.11 in typical developing children. There was no statistically significant difference between the scores of gifted and typical developing children. In line with these results, it can be said that class activities should be structured in a way that will support the development of both gifted children and typical developing children and ensure that their perception of classroom activities is positive.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gifted, Class Activities, Interest, Choice, Challenge, Enjoyment

Kaynakça

• Alexander, J. M., & Schnick, A. K. (2008). Motivation. J. A. Plucker, & C. M. Callahan (Ed.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education içinde (s. 423–447). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. I., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., & Forstadt, L. (2006). Attributional choices for academic success and failure by intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001698620605000402
• Bacanlı, H., & Sahinkaya, O. (2011). The adaptation study of academic motivation scale into Turkish. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 562-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.068
• Bildiren, A. (2018). The interest issues of gifted children, World Journal of Education, 8(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v8n1p17
• Brigandi, C. B., Siegle, D., Weiner, J. M., Gubbins, E. J., & Little, C. A. (2016). Gifted secondary school students: The perceived relationship between enrichment and goal valuation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(4), 263-287. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0162353216671837
• Brigandi, C. B., Weiner, J. M., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., & Little, C. A. (2018). Environmental perceptions of gifted secondary school students engaged in an evidence-based enrichment practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986218758441
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Cash, R. (2011). Advancing differentiation: Thinking and learning skills for the 21st century. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. R., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th Ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 17-23. https://doi/10.1037/0708-5591.49.3.262
• Deniz, K. Z., & Saranlı, A. G. (2017). Sınıf Etkinliklerim Ölçeği’nin (SEÖ) Türk kültürüne uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 8(2), 169-182. https://doi/10.21031/epod.291825
• Ersoy, E., & Başer, N. (2010). Probleme dayalı öğrenme sürecinin öğrenci motivasyonuna etkisi. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(4), 336-358.
• Ertem, H. (2006). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin kimya derslerine yönelik güdülenme tür (içsel ve dışsal) ve düzeylerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Motivation requires a meaningful task. The English Journal, 100(1), 30-36.
• Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My Class Activities: A survey instrument to assess students’perceptions of interest, challenge, choice and enjoyment in their classrooms [Instrument]. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
• Gentry, M., Gable, R. K., & Springer, P. (2000). Gifted and nongifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, My Class Activities…? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(1), 74-95. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016235320002400104
• Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality: Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.4219%2Fjsge-2004-464
• Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (2001). Gifted students’ perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001698620104500205
• Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar-ilkeler-teknikler. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• McNabb, T. (2003). Motivational issues: Potential to performance. N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education içinde (3rd Ed., s. 417-423). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Ed.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance içinde (s. 131-159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Ortiz, C. J. (2018). An experimental comparison of student motivation between two computational thinking-based stem activities: vex-based automation and robotics and a quadcopter activity. (Master of Science), https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7193/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Park, S., & Oliver E. (2009). The translation of teachers’ understanding of gifted students into instructional strategies for teacheing science. Journal Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 333-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9138-7
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
• Pereira, N., Bakhiet, S. F., Gentry, M., Balhmar, T. A., & Hakami, S. M. (2017). Sudanese students’ perceptions of their class activities: psychometric properties and measurement invariance of my class activities–Arabic language version. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(2), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1932202X17701881
• Pereira, N., Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2010). My Class Activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 568–593. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1932202X1002100402
• Reid, E., & Horváthová, B. (2016). Teacher training programs for gifted education with focus on sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(2), 66-74.
• 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%2F001698620004400302
• Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.
• Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students (Rev. ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
• Roeper A., & Silverman L. (2009) Giftedness and moral promise. T. Cross, & D. Ambrose (Ed.) Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89368-6_19
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Handbook of self-determination research içinde (s. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
• Sak, U. (2017). Üstün zekâlılar. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
• Saranlı, A. G. (2017). Eş zamanlı olmayan gelişimin üstün yetenekli çocuklardaki görünümü üzerine bir örnek olay çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.300060
• Schiefele, U. (1991). Interests, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.
• Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D. V., Pollard, E., & Romey, E. (2010). Exploring the relationship of college freshmen honors students’ effort and ability attribution, interest, and implicit theory of intelligence with perceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986209355975
• Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596607
• Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. (2007). A parent’s guide to gifted children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
• Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
• Wright, B. L., & Ford, D. Y. (2017). Untapped potential: Recognition of giftedness in early childhood and what professionals should know about students of color. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1076217517690862
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1932202X12451021