Investigating Stakeholder Opinions on A Resource Room Program for Gifted Students

Purpose: The present research aims at determining the stakeholders’ opinion about a resource room program for gifted students in a primary school. Design/Methodology/Approach: Structured as a case study, the research project was carried out in a primary school in the Eskisehir province of Turkey. Participants of the research consisted of the school headmaster, the teacher of the resource room, gifted students attending the program, parents of gifted students and classroom teachers whose students attended the program. Data used in the research were collected through semi structured interviews. The research data were analyzed using the systematic analysis approach. Findings: The findings of this research revealed that the program has generally been positively perceived by stakeholders. On the other hand, the participants expressed their concerns and some problems, especially due to the program was carried out during school hours like much homework, missed out some important lessons and restriction in curriculum. Highlights: The study showed that in order for the gifted student pull-out programs to be efficient it should be collaboration between stakeholders. It is recommended that it should be given to schools more flexibility in organizing and operating programs for an effective program.

Üstün Yeteneklilere Yönelik Destek Eğitim Odası Programına İlişkin Paydaş Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Çalışmanın Amacı: Bu araştırmanın genel amacı bir ilkokulda destek eğitim odası kapsamında üstün yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik yürütülen programa ilişkin okul paydaşlarının görüşlerini incelemektir. Yöntem: Durum çalışması şeklinde desenlenen araştırma, Eskişehir ilinde yer alan bir ilkokulda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları ise okul müdürü, destek eğitim odası öğretmeni, destek eğitim odasına devam eden üstün yetenekli öğrenciler, bu öğrencilerin velileri, destek eğitim odasına sınıfından öğrenci giden genel sınıf öğretmenleridir. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak yarı yapılandırılmış bireysel ve odak grup görüşmeleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen veriler sistematik içerik analiz yaklaşımı ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırma sürecinde elde edilen bulgular sonucunda okul paydaşlarının yürütülen programa yönelik olumlu algıya sahip oldukları görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte katılımcılar özellikle programın okul ders saatleri içerisinde yürütülmesinden kaynaklı olarak müfredatı yetiştirememe, fazla ödev yükü, derslerden geri kalma gibi sorunları ve kaygılarını belirtmişlerdir. Önemli Vurgular: Araştırma sonucunda üstün yeteneklilere yönelik destek eğitim odalarında etkili programlar için paydaşların görüşleri doğrultusunda düzenlemelerin önemi ve paydaşlar arası işbirliğinin sağlanması ön plana çıkmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda etkili bir program için okullara, programların düzenlenmesinde ve işleyişinde daha fazla esnekliğin tanınması önerilmektedir.

PDF

___

Adelson, J. L., Mc Coach, D. B., & Gavin, M. K. (2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLSK. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(1), 25-39.

Alloway, T. P., & Elsworth, M. (2012). An investigation of cognitive skills and behavior in high ability students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 891-895. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.02.001

Archambault, F. X, Jr, Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Babbie, E. (2013). The practice of social research (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1): 39–64.

Bedur, S., Bilgiç, N., & Taşlıdere, E. (2015). Özel (üstün) yetenekli öğrencilere sunulan destek eğitim hizmetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 221-242.

Belcastro, F. (1987). Elementary pull-out programs for the intellectually gifted--boon or bane? Roeper Review, 9, 208-212.

Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Çev: H. Aydın). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi

Borland, J. H. (2013). Problematizing gifted education. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Ed.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 69-81). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brighton, C.M., & Wiley, K. (2013). Analyzing pull-out programs: A framework for planning. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Ed.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 188-198). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brulles, D., Saunders, R., & Cohn, S. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 327-352.

Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azano, A. P., & Hailey, E. P. (2015). What Works in gifted education: Documenting effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1–31. doi:10.3102/0002831214549448

Campbell, J. R., & Verna, M. A. (1998). Comparing separate class and pull-out programs for the gifted [Conference presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. Clark, B. (2013). Growing up gifted: developing the potential of children at school and at home. (8th ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson.

Cohen, L. M. (2006). Conceptual foundations for gifted education: stock-taking. Roeper Review, 28(2), 91-110.

Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen, S. L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 33-37.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Philadelphia: John Templeton Foundation.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (4. Baskıdan Çeviri). (Çev: S. B. Demir). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayınları.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quanitative and qualitative Research. Upper saddle river, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Cox, J. & Daniel, N. (1984). The pull-out model. G/C/T, 34, 55-61.

Çevik, M., & Yağcı, A. (2017). Destek eğitim odalarına ilişkin idareci ve sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri: Karaman ili örneği. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 58(2), 65-79. doi:10.9761/JASSS709

Dade County Public Schools. (1983). An evaluative overview of the Kendale Pilot Resource Program. FL: Miami. Office of Educational Accountability.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Davison, L., Coates, D., & Johnson, S. (2005). The effects of a pull-out enrichment project on academically able 9-to 10-year olds: The Pate's Curriculum Enrichment Project. Gifted Education International, 20(3), 330-342.

Delcourt, M. A., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Charlottesville, VA: NRC/GT.

Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359–381.

Dimitriadis, C. (2011). Developing mathematical ability in primary school through a ‘pull-out’ programme: a case study. Education 3-13, 39(5), 467-482.

Dimitriadis, C. (2012). How are schools in England addressing the needs of mathematically gifted children in primary classrooms? A review of practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 59.

Dimitriadis, C. (2016). Gifted programs cannot be successful without gifted research and theory: evidence from practice with gifted students of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(3), 221-236.

Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). Why the public schools will continue to neglect the gifted? Gifted Child Today. March/April, 55-59.

Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Ed..), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gallagher, J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 5-12.

Geake, J. G. (2008). High abilities at fluid analogizing: A cognitive neuroscience construct of giftedness. Roeper Review, 30(3), 187-195.

Gubbels, J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Cognitive, socioemotional and attitudinal effects of a triarchic enrichment program for gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 378–397. doi:10.1177/0162353214552565.

Gubbins, E. J. (2013). Cognitive and affective outcomes of pull-out programs: Knowns and unknows. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Ed.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 176-188). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gürgür, H. (2017). Eylem araştırması. In A. Saban & A. Ersoy (Ed.), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri (pp. 1-50). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and issufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill and the will to differentiate adequately. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253.

Hong, E., Greene, M. T., & Higgins, K. (2006). Instructional practices of teachers in general education and gifted resource rooms: Development and validation of the instructional practice questionnaire. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 91-101.

Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Ryser, G. R., & Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing general education practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 45-63.

Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg R.J. (2008). Conception of giftedness, S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Hvebook of giftedness in children içinde (s. 71-92) N.Y. Springer Science+Business Media

Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127-136.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.

Lazzelle, L. (2015). Student perceptions of engagement in part-time and full-time gifted programs[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Southwest Baptist University.

Long, L. C., Barnett, K., & Rogers, K. B. (2015). Exploring the relationship between principal, policy and gifted program scope and quality. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 118-140.

Marshall, M. N., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage.

Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5(3), 256-270.

McCulloch, A. C. (2010). How stakeholders perceive gifted education: A study of beliefs held by stakeholders in elementary gifted education programs [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.

MEB. (2018). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Ankara: MEB Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.

MEB. (2013). Üstün yetenekli bireyler strateji ve uygulama planı. Ankara: MEB Özel Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.

MEB. (2015). Destek eğitim odası klavuzu. Ankara: MEB Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.

Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. S. Turan (Çev.Ed.), Ankara: Nobel Yayın.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi. (Çev: S. Akbaba-Altun & A. Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi Yayınları.

Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class for fourth- and fifth-grade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 64-79.

Moon, T.R., Tomlinson, C.A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers. (NRC G/T Research Monograph No. 95124). Charlottesville, VA:University of Virginia.

Morelock, M. J., & Morrison, K. (1999). Differentiating ‘developmentally appropriate’: The multidimensional curriculum model for young gifted children. Roeper Review, 21(3), 195-200.

Morgan, A. (2007). Experiences of a gifted and talented enrichment cluster for pupils aged five to seven. British Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 144-153.

Murphy, P. R. (2009). Essays on gifted education's impact on student achievement. The Florida State University.

Nar, B., & Tortop, H. S. (2017). Türkiye’de özel/üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için destek eğitim odası uygulaması: sorunlar ve öneriler. Aydın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 83-97.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted programming stveards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC.

National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). State of the states in gifted education 2014–2015: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC.

Neihart, M. (2007). The socio affective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330-341.

Osin, L., & Lesgold, A. (1996). A proposal for the reengineering of the educational system. Review of educational research, 66, 621–656.

Pemik, K. (2017). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilere destek odasında verilen eğitime ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Persson, R. S. (2010). Experiences of intellectually gifted students in an egalitarian and inclusive educational system: A survey study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 536-569.

Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280– 282.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26-35.

Ritrievi, G. G. (1988). An investigation of the pull-out model utilized in elementary gifted programs [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lehigh University.

Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 8-25.

Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.

Sak, U. (2014). Üstün zekalılar: özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.

Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper Review, 20(February), 204-210.

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 176.

Süel, E. (2017). Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için destek eğitim odası. In M.Z. Leana-Taşcılar (ed.), Üstün yetenekli Çocukların Psikolojisi: Teoriden uygulamaya (pp. 329-362). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Swanson, J. D. (2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(2), 131-164.

Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 118-130.

Şahin, F. (2015). Üstün zekalı öğrencilerin eğitimine yönelik eğitsel stratejiler. In F. Şahin (Ed.), Üstün zekalı ve üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimi (pp.3-20). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Brimijoin, K. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145.

Tortop, H. S., & Dinçer, S. (2016). Destek eğitim odalarında üstün/üstün yetenekli öğrencilerle çalışan sınıf öğretmenlerinin uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 11-28.

Tunalı-Erkan, D. (2018). Ortaöğretim kurumlarındaki destek eğitim odası uygulamasına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Uluslararası Liderlik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(2), 17-30.

van der Meulen, R. T., van der Bruggen, C. O., Spilt, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout, M., & Bögels, S. M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child and Youth Care Forum,1-28.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1987). The ineffectiveness of the pull-out model in gifted education: A minority perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(4), 255–64.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 199-215,273.

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, 270–287. doi:10.1177/1932202X12451021.

Yavuz, O., & Yavuz, Y. (2016). Destek eğitim odasında uygulanan etkinliklerin ilkokul düzeyindeki üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin yaratıcılık becerilerine etkisi. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1-13.

Yazıcıoğlu, T. (2020). Destek eğitim odalarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin gözüyle destek eğitim odaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 21(2), 273-297.

Yin, (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999b). Evaluating the effects of full-time vs part-time educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes and policy considerations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(4), 413-427.

Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–21). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Zubal, P. C. (2015). Middle school gifted students' academic achievement and perceptions of cognitive and affective experiences with participation in full-time or part-time gifted program service delivery models [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Florida Gulf Coast University.