___

• 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.