ÜSTÜN YETENEKLİ ÖĞRENCİLERİN TARİH DERSİNE YÖNELİK TUTUMLARININ CİNSİYET VE SINIF SEVİYESİ BAĞLAMINDA İNCELENMESİ

Üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimi uzun bir geçmişe sahiptir, aynı zamanda üstünlerin eğitimi meselesi toplumların gelişimi açısından son derece önemlidir. Yıllardır eğitimciler ve araştırmacılar üstün yetenekli çocukların dünyasını incelemeye ilgi duymaktadırlar. Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin ihtiyaçlarını anlamaya yönelik birçok çalışma vardır. Bu tarz özelliklere sahip olan çocukların gelişimlerine yardımcı olmak için eğitimcilerin üstünlere yönelik programlar geliştirmesi gerekmektedir. Program geliştirirken göz önünde bulundurulması gereken noktalardan biri de öğrencilerin tutumlarıdır. Nitel bir çalışma olan bu araştırmanın amacı üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin Türkiye'de liselerde okutulan tarih dersine yönelik tutumlarını, cinsiyet ve sınıf bazında incelemektir. Araştırmanın örneklem kümesini Türkiye'de üstünlere yönelik lise düzeyinde eğitim veren ve bu alanda tek okul olan TEV İnanç Türkeş lisesinde okuyan 133 üstün yetenekli öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Öğrencilerin turumlarını ölçmek için Likert ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Hedef gruba uygulanmadan önce, Ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği test etmek amacıyla pilot bir çalışma gerçekleştirilmiş ve elde edilen veriler SPSS 23 (IBM) ve SPSS AMOS 23 (IBM) ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada cinsiyet bağlamında üstün yetenekli kız ve erkek öğrencilerin tarih dersine yönelik tutumlarında önemli farklılıkların olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Sınıf bazında baktığımızda 10. Sınıf öğrencilerinin tarih dersine yönelik tutumlarının diger sınıf seviyelerine göre daha olumlu oldugu tespit edilmiştir

GIFTED STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS HISTORY LESSONS BASED ON GENDER AND GRADE LEVEL

The field of gifted education has a long history. It is also a very crucial issue for the development of societies. Many educators and researchers have been interested in analyzing the high ability students’ world. There are many studies conducted to understand gifted students’ needs. These students need special programs; and educators should take into consideration their learning styles and abilities when they establish programs and create materials. Conducting attitudes studies provide a good starting point for educators who wish to introduce suitable programs or lessons to students. The purpose of this quantitative study is to investigate the differences on gifted students’ attitudes toward history lessons taught in high schools in Turkey based on gender and grade level. The sample consisted of 133 gifted students in grades prep–12 (approximately 14–18 years of age) in TEV Inanç Turkeş High School. It is a boarding school in Turkey that accepts only gifted students for enrollment. Likert attitude scale was designed and used to measure the attitudes towards the study of history in high school students. Before applying this scale on the main target group, a pilot study was carried out in order to test the reliability and validation of the scale. For the statistical analysis of the data, SPSS Statistics 23 (IBM) and SPSS AMOS 23 (IBM) were used. The results of this study indicated that there are no significant differences between gifted female and male students’ attitudes towards history lessons. But the grade level of students had a significant effect on attitudes towards history lessons. This study showed that 10thgrade students show more positive attitudes toward history lessons than the other grades

PDF

___

Artvinli, E., Gülüm, K. & Çoşkun, S. (2010). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin coğrafya dersine karşı eğilimleri, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3 (14), 62-69.
Avery, L. D., & Zuo, L. (2003). Selecting resources and materials for high-ability learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 259-277). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1986). Mathematically talented males and females and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425-436.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598-622.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Intellectually talented boys and girls: Educational profiles. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(2), 82-88.
Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper Review, 26(4), 190-191.
Caron, E. (2004). The impact of a methods course on teaching practices: Implementing issuescentered teaching in the secondary social studies classroom. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(4), 4-19.
Curebal, H. (2004). Gifted students’ attitudes towards science and classroom environment based on gender and grade level. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Delisle, J. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1982). The revolving door identification and programming model: Correlates of creative production. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(2), 89–95.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.). Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace national research symposium on talent development (pp. 2-30). New York: Trillium Press.
Fox. L. H. (1982). The study of social processes that inhibit or enhance the development of competence and interest in mathematics among highly able young women. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Freeman J. (2003). Gender differences in gifted achievement in Britain and the U.S. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 202-211.
Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufmann, J. C. (Eds.) (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books.
Greene, S. (1994). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 89-96.
Gubbins, E. J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heller, Kurt A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 200-210.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
İnal H. C., & Günay S. (2002). Olasılık ve matematiksel istatistik. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Kaplan, S. N. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F. A Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 107-131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kelly, A.(1986). The development of girls’ and boys’ attitudes to science: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 399–412.
Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2001). Who are America’s gifted? American Journal of Education, 109(3), 344-382.
Landrum, M. S., Callahan, C. M., & Shaklee, B. D. (Eds.) (2001). Aiming for excellence: Gifted program standards: Annotations to the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Little, C. A., & Ellis, W. T. (2003). Aligning curriculum for the gifted with content standards and exemplary secondary programs. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 327-354). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Little, C. A., Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers, K. S., & Avery, L. D. (2007). A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 272-284.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 61-66.
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Morelock, M. (2000). Gender differences in engineering and the physical sciences among the gifted: An inorganic-organic distinction. In K. Heller, F. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 633-648). Oxford: Pergamon.
Lupart, J. L., Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. A. (2004). Gender differences in adolescent academic achievement, interests, values and life-role expectations. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 25-42.
Mayer, R. H. (2006). Learning to teach young people how to think historically: A case study of one student teacher’s experience. The Social Studies, 97(2), 69-76.
Meydan, H. C., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: AMOS uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). Curriculum guidelines for social studies teaching and learning: A position statement of the National Council for the Social Studies. Social Education, 72(4), 211-212.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Okur, A., & Özsoy, Y. (2013). Üstün zekalı öğrencilerin türkçe dersine yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi: Bartın Bilsem örneği [A research for the attitudes of gifted students towards Turkish lesson: A sample of Bartin Bilsem]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(3), 254-264.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Turner, D. (2002). Gender differences among elementary school-aged gifted students in achievement, perceptions of ability, and subject preference. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(3), 233-268.
Orbay, M., Gökdere, M., Tereci, H., & Aydın, M. (2010). Attitudes of gifted students towards science depending on some variables: A Turkish sample. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(7), 693- 699.
Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Attitudes and opinions (3rd ed.) Manwah. NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
Reis, Sally M., & Park, S. (2001). Gender differences in high-achieving students in math and science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(1), 52-73.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261.
Sandling, M. M. (2003). Adapting social studies curricula for high-ability learners. In J. VanTasselBaska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 219- 254). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Cognitive approaches to intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 59-118). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Stryker R. D., (1996). Measuring attitudes towards the study of history in high school students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Houston.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Terman, L. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius, Volume 1: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terwilliger, J. S., & Titus, J. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 29-34.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vaughn, S. R., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2003). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom: Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to meet the academic needs of the gifted and talented. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495-519.