Introduction
Education of individuals from all intellectual levels in a developed society is quite important. Thus, the society should provide financial support to find solutions for educational issues affecting its community. It is thought that a large amount of money is being used for individuals at low intellectual levels and modern societies do not consider this as a waste of money or time (Gökdere & Küçük, 2003). Likewise, some kind of special education opportunities are provided for G/C’s education. These endeavors are aimed to be used in order to widen the potentials of G/C in such an effective form. In this way, G/C can be adapted into the society more easily (Renzulli, 1985). It is found out from the literature that approximately 2 to 3% of individuals in all societies in the world are gifted (Witty, 1958; Marland, 1971). Unfortunately, these gifted individuals are not truly identified and trained accordingly. For that reason, the majority of them might have psychological problems and become dangerous for a community (Witty, 1958; Marland, 1971).
Feldhusen
(1986) explained giftedness as a complex of intelligence, aptitudes,
talents, expertise, motivation and creativity which can lead an individual
to a productive performance in some areas or disciplines such as
intellectual and scientific leadership, creativity, artistry, dramatic,
musical, mechanical and physical activities.
G/C need to be educated with different teaching programs and
strategies. A different kind of education for those children is destined
to be a support for their own psychological developments and using their
own potentials for the benefit of a society in which they live (Feldhusen,
1986; Renzulli, 1999). It is
thought that if an effective education is given by a community to G/C,
they would able to give impetus to developments of the society in both art
and science areas. Thus,
projects about the G/C have a rooted past in some western countries (Witty,
1958; Marland, 1971; Jordan, 1962; Renzulli, 1985).
There are some kinds of gifted education (G/E) models which have
been developed and implemented in those countries, for example Autonomous
Learning Models (Betts, 1986), Three Phases of Enrichment Model (Feldhussen
&
Kolloff, 1986) and LES (Learning Enrichment Service) model (Clifford,
Runions & Smyth, 1986). Teacher roles in the G/C’s education should be in such a form that a
gifted child works as a scientist; inquires, observes, solves, tests and
finds answers to his/her own problems at last (Sherwood, 1996).
In addition, SG/Ts should have some extra roles as a model and
value instructor, interest maker and functional evaluator throughout
different parts of teaching practices. G/Ts’ ideal characteristics are sequenced as efficiency on
subject areas, wide spread concern areas, flexible thinking, tolerance and
neutrality. It is also
expected from them to be aware of being good examples for children’s
characteristics and life styles, encourage them to high levels of learning,
concern areas and independent studies (Jordan, 1962; Sisk, 1987). 1.1.
G/E in the Turkish Context Turkey
is quite late for studies about the G/C’s education. However, some kinds of insignificant studies have made
progress. For example, high-special
level classrooms were opened in the 1960’s.
Nevertheless, inequitable applications have been encountered in the
G/C’s identification system and it had to be gotten rid of.
In the 1980’s, these kinds of attempts were started again and
some projects have been developed with the help of the past projects.
However, the most important development about the G/C’s education
is talent development centers which have been established under the name
of “Science and Art Centers” (SACs) in five cities since 1993.
Now, there are ten SACs which have function and accept G/C in
Turkey under the control of the Ministry of National Education (MNE).
There are also seven ones which do not accept children yet.
However, most of these centers are either new or still in the
establishment phase. Thus, it
has been found out that there are many problems with children and/or
teacher selection and in program implementation processes in these centers
(Çepni, Gökdere & Küçük, 2002; Gökdere & Küçük, 2003).
Within those problems, it is believed that the G/T selection method
is the most important issue because teachers have essential roles in all
parts of learning process and they are the most influential.
Nevertheless, SACs have been newly opened and some of them are
still in the establishment phases, it is not an unexpected result for
these centers to have some problems in the teaching area.
Here, there is a point that needs to be thoroughly examined; how
should we more appropriately select the G/Ts for the task?
Furthermore, how can we cultivate within them ideal characteristics
and develop them in the profession? Doubtlessly,
it would be helpful to find out those problems and solve them in a way
which can provide some critical implications for the G/E literature. SACs are a different from normal education institutions in both program
and education time. Children
go to both normal schools and SACs in a day and sessions at these centers
are adjusted to work around the children’s normal school programs. Children go to their normal schools during all weekdays, and
a few evenings during the week they go to SACs. Children
who are selected and enrolled at SACs take five education programs in
sequence as orientation, support education, noticing individual
characteristics, developing special abilities, and project construction.
Time of each education process is arranged by the centers.
Through the process of each education part and at the end of each
process, guide and leader teachers make the assessments of the education
program toward gifted children and prepare assessment reports.
All of these sessions have different importance on education of
gifted children. However, the
most important of these is project construction sessions that is also a
basic aim of this education model. Leader
teachers at these institutions provide the required pre-learning for the
aim of knowledge and skills to be gained by the gifted children in project
preparation and developing subjects.
Leader teachers also prepare projects and present sample projects. On the preparation of the projects, gifted children’s
suggestions are certainly assessed. Children
do their project work in groups and each group consists of three to five
individuals. If needed,
individual projects are done. Projects
which are developed at the SACs are basically related to solving a problem
or compensating a need in the real world.
Selections of subjects of the projects are not limited.
Every kind of constructions, services, scientific works and art
activities can be given as project characteristics.
Those project works aim gifted children to have some qualifications
such as working among disciplines and developing synthesis of different
skills. In these projects as a method, gifted children’s selections of their
own project subjects, adapting their own solutions to them, and learning
much more in these phases are taken as a basic point.
Thus, gifted children under the guidance of expert teachers can
grow as people that have the skills for constructing and learning as
living, solving problems, thinking creatively, making scientific research
and inventing individuals by making a plan, implementing and assessment
phases (Journal of Reports; n.2530). 1.1.2.
Problems of The G/E in The Turkish Context Many
studies related to the G/C have been started in many countries since 1920
(Jordan, 1962), but it is rather new in our country. This partly achieved in the art area, however, in the science
area little has been done on this issue up until now. In the past, G/C at only art areas were supported in Turkey.
However, currently 46.5% of the children of SACs are gifted in
intellectual areas, and 51.5 of them are gifted in art areas (Gökdere
& Küçük, 2003). The
present identification system determines talented children mostly in
cities. Thus, the others who
especially live in suburban areas are ignored.
G/C mostly belong to parents of high social-economic levels.
In contrast, the system should be used to determine all the G/C
regardless of their socio-economic levels.
Unfortunately, many teachers and families have not comprehensively
dealt with the issues or problems of G/C in Turkey (Akarsu, 1993).
They do not realize or know how to handle them. The other problem is that children in these centers are expected to be
successful at high stake tests. Because
of the nature of the assessment system of Turkish students, achievement is
directly related to these tests (Çepni, Kaya & Küçük, 2002).
Thus, students’ professional life in the future is also related
to these examinations. However,
in this assessment system gifted/talented children are not given a
privilege. Thus, parents are
giving importance to getting ready for those national examinations rather
than developing abilities available to their children. This expectation leads to a continuing problem at both
primary and high school levels. It
is important to see that there is lack of G/Ts who are capable of teaching
G/C. It is also important to
note that G/Ts’ education is not valued nor are they educated enough to
work with those gifted students, however a large amount of financial
source is separated for those centers. Since the G/C’s education is practiced in our country in SACs in
parallel to normal education, some problems are encountered in this
process. One problem that
stands out is that children use up all their time and come to SACs from
their normal schools. Thus,
they cannot compensate their fundamental needs such as food and resting.
Most of the teachers who work at SACs have been selected from
normal school teachers. Thus,
teachers at normal schools have a sorrow so as not to be selected for
these centers, and look at these centers and G/Ts with prejudgment and
antipathy. Because of this,
these teachers reflect their negative attitudes upon G/C in their
classrooms. It seems that the
most important problem of the G/E in Turkey is G/Ts’ development.
Here I will explain this issue in some details. 1.1.3.
The Turkish G/Ts’ selection process The
complete selection process of the Turkish G/Ts includes a sequence
summarized and presented below (Gökdere & Küçük, 2003): 1. Local
education administrations (LEA) where SACs are situated, announce that
teachers with some characteristics are required for SACs.
Therefore, they send an official letter to all school
administrations. 2. Teachers
who are willing to work at these centers apply to LEA. 3. Those
whose applications have been accepted are taken into a seminar work
organized by Ministry of National Education (MNE).
Then, sample teachers are separated according to their subject
areas and each group is expected to finish a project work. When these project works are finished, teachers that are
considered successful are then hired for the job. 4. The
required correspondences are done about these teachers with related
institutions and those in charge of SACs. 5. These
centers are such an independent school status that there is not a
mechanism to inspect these schools and teachers at work. It is accepted that G/E includes quite a student-centered approach,
however teachers’ roles in this education are too much that we cannot
neglect it. Especially,
selection of the most appropriate ones among a lot of candidates is
difficult and a detailed method is required to examine whether a candidate
is suitable for the job. In
the Turkish context, as mentioned above announcement for candidacy is
limited to ones who work mostly in the city centers.
However, selection announcement of the G/T candidates should be
done in a manner that all teachers who want to have a job in the schools
hear and thus they should not be limited as stressed by Renzulli (1985)
and Wood (1996). In a study
Wood and Feldhusen (1996) conducted a research and their purpose was to
examine teachers who wanted to work at the “Super
Saturday Program.” I would
like to compare it with the Turkish context as follows: The first task is to place an ad in a local and university newspaper to
select teachers who wish to work at Super Saturday Program.
Some kinds of hand notices are also distributed.
The aim is to reach as many people as possible in the content of a
business announcement is quite important because characteristics of
desired individuals are situated in a clear form.
Prospective candidates are given enough time, like a few weeks, for
submitting the application forms. Then,
these are assessed. The most
important part of the assessment phase is interviews (Renzulli, 1985).
Individuals are interviewed in depth.
The aim of interviews is to notice individual characteristics as
much as possible. These
interviews sometimes can take more than two hours and results are
announced within a short time. Each
class is required at least a teacher and a course assistant, and a plan is
done to meet all these needs (Wood, 1996).
Here, it is quite important to make this task attractive for many
people because if more candidates apply for this job, the most appropriate
and also the best ones could be selected.
In the selection process, it is required to be careful with
individual characteristics and skills of the candidates.
It does not mean that those with some individual characteristics
and skills should reach a definite age (Sisk, 1987).
Thus, examining the relationship level between ideal
characteristics and individuals’ characteristics is important to reach a
decision on them. In Turkey on the other hand, business announcements are limited to
teachers working at the normal schools connected to MNE, and this seems to
decrease number of candidates and also limit the possibility of finding
more qualified candidates. There
is not a phase such as the interviews, which can measure the candidates’
qualities. These facts can be
considered as proofs of not giving the required importance to the G/T
selection processes (Gökdere & Küçük, 2003).
Most of the people who apply for this task announcement are old
teachers, and they do not put their characteristics in front.
Thus, a written document that can identify candidates’ own
characteristics is demanded. In
later phases when business applications are assessed for Super Saturday
Program, whether a candidate has ideal characteristics is continually
tested (Renzulli, 1985). However,
in the context of Turkey, there is not a control system like this, and
characteristics of teachers who are working at these centers are not
tested in an effective way. Feldhusen
(1997) clarified that characteristics that science and mathematics
teachers of gifted have are quite different from those who are to work at
music, picture and other art areas. Thus,
selection process of these teachers should be different from others.
However, current practices in Turkish system are contrasted to this
idea. It is correct to
explain that in the Turkish context, selection process of the G/Ts at the
SACs are similar to each other and the same measurement means are used, so
G/Ts are not selected by a process based on the real and objective
criteria (Gökdere & Küçük, 2003). Feldhusen
and Kollof (1986) explained that G/Ts face some problems in education
process and seek for help from academics in some areas such as, perceiving
G/C’s signals, differentiating the program, determining target attitudes,
using measurement and assessment techniques and individual and program
assessments. Results of a
project done by Archambault and his colleagues (1993) supported this idea.
In two new studies, it has been found out that G/Ts mostly face
problems in determining G/C’s needs, using alternative assessment
techniques and teaching activities (Feldhusen, 1997; Schultz, 2000).
It was also determined that G/Ts in Australia have faced a lot of
problems in G/C’s teaching process and demanded extra help from
academics. This context
requires some kinds of in service seminars on problematical areas (Schwizer,
1994). G/Ts face some
problems about measurement and assessment subjects and related to this
topic Gallagher (1998) conducted a large-scale project to help them, named
“accountability for gifted students.” It
is seen that there are many studies about the G/Ts’ problems faced
during own teaching practices, however, these are not specified on SG/Ts’
problems. Thus, a research
question can be formed as whether SG/Ts’ problems are similar to the
others or not. For this aim,
the Turkish context is examined in depth in this article, and it is
believed that this project’s results would force G/E toward a more
developed and improved form. The
study’s conclusions would also be a sample case for some countries that
are new at G/E area. Based on
the explained reasons up to now in this article, a case study has been
planned to determine the SG/Ts’ problems encountered during the G/E and
suggested some future implications for the G/E. Before
all, here, I will discuss G/T development in Turkey under four categories
as license level, certificate program, pre service education and in
service education and also compare it with some western countries.
a)
License Level There
is not a program that gives training about the G/T education on license
level in Turkey. Just a few
universities have such programs to develop special education teachers;
however, special education is understood as similar to physically disabled
children’s education. Because
this these programs mostly focus on developing teachers for those kinds of
children, not developing teachers for the G/C. Literature
review shows that there is not a program that can educate teachers
according to different branches for the G/C on license level on the world
(Abram, 1982; Renzulli, 1985; Schultz, 2001).
On the other hand, a course named “giftedness
and gifted children’s education” is taught at the teacher
education programs of the universities of America sometimes as obligatory
and sometimes as an elective course.
Its content includes subjects such as the nature of giftedness,
necessities, psychology, and ability kinds, guidance methods to the G/C
and, material and strategies for the education of G/C.
b)
Certificate Program It
is seen that some kinds of certificate programs for teachers take four or
eight months for computer and classroom teachers and also Faculties of
Science – Art graduates in Turkey.
However, a certificate program has not been planned to develop G/Ts.
If the education and development systems of the G/Ts in the world
is examined, a teacher graduates from a teacher program and takes a
certificate program or a summer course and develops him/herself, is a
model which is mostly faced (Abram, 1982; Renzulli, 1985; Karnes, 1995,
2000). The contents of the
programs implemented in other countries have some variations due to the
structures of implemented programs. For
example some kinds of G/E programs are used named as Super Saturday (Wood,
1996), Learning Enrichment Service (LES) (Clifford, Runions & Smyth,
1986) and Enrichment Program (Renzulli, 1986). Karnes and his colleagues (1977, 1981, 1983, 1991, and 2000) conducted a
series of projects in order to determine the needs and kinds of
certificate programs in USA between 1977 and 2000’s.
These studies all aimed to determine in which areas student
teachers and teachers require certificate or development programs,
examination times of these certificate and development programs depends on
each state. It is thought
that a need for G/T education certificate programs is low in the 1970s
however it is much more increased in the 2000s.
This increased demand explains the request for a certificate
program for master degrees. From
these studies, it is seen some remarkable variations between G/T
development via certificate programs and summer courses and, other
teachers who did not take education from both attitude and behavior points
(Witlock, 1989; Hansen, 1994). The
first condition referred that a G/T is one who is to graduate from a
related certificate program on the area of G/E (Renzulli, 1985; Karnes,
1991; Wood, 1996). c)
Pre service Training In
the current selection system of the Turkish G/Ts, they are directly
started to work at the SACs without taking a comprised training program.
Though there is some local efforts to prepare G/Ts, an in depth
course program is not in the works at present (Çepni, Gökdere &
Bacanak, 2003). However, in other countries, a series of training is given to the
teachers who are selected for the G/E.
Wood and Feldhusen (1996) explained that there should have been
some kinds of seminars and activities in this training process.
They also explained that with the seminars, it should have been
referenced to experienced teachers at the G/C’s education areas and
subject area experts’ ideas and, also both should work in these
evaluation phases. Here,
there is an important point on which I need to focus.
When a selection period starts, a seminar is given to all
candidates in Turkey but seminars and training activities abroad are just
given to the selected ones (Abram, 1982; Wood, 1986; Wood & Feldhusen,
1996). I suppose that this
lets teachers utilize much more from it and the organization of a seminar
at the start of G/Ts’ selection period is waste of both finance and
time. These seminars are not used as a selection instrument, even
if used valid results cannot be taken.
It is also discussed that for these seminars to reach their own
aims and contribute to the Turkish G/Ts’ selections, they did not give
as good result as expected. Thus, it is required to move the seminar from the selection
period (as it is in the current system) to the education period, and
implement them in a more effective form.
d)
In service Training In
the Journal of Reports (Issue number: 2530) in which SACs’ instruction
is revised, it is included that In service courses are to be organized for
the G/Ts in the SACs each year. However,
there is not additional information about the quality of the contents,
teaching methods nor approaches of these In service education courses.
Because of the fact that these seminars are organized without
taking into consideration teachers’ branch differentiation and In
service course needs, these are not as a continual In service education
form and mostly seen as identification seminars. In an article which examines the present context of the SG/E,
data showed that none of the GS/Ts took a course on special education in
pre service education period
and some of them took an In service course just one time.
These can be accepted as proof of the system facing some important
problems in both pre service and
In service periods (Gökdere & Küçük, 2003).
In service seminars should be organized based on a sequenced model,
as determination of teachers’ needs, preparation of a program,
implementation of it, and take feedback from teachers’ real practices. In the related literature, there are some approaches used in
the G/Ts’ education such as unlimited abilities approach (Schlicter,
1986), needs assessment approach (Wood, 1986), and Renzulli’s In service
approach (Renzulli, 1986). In
the Turkish context, In service education seminars are organized not in a
definite period by the NME and teachers’ branch differentiation.
Thus, In service course needs are not taken into consideration.
In service courses that will be organized are announced in the
related instruction each year (Journal of Reports: n.2530); however, just
a few seminars are organized for the G/Ts at these centers (Çepni, Gökdere
& Bacanak, 2003). Research
findings are incorporated in a point that the most important part of In
service course development is to determine the needs of the participants (Wood,
1986; Schlicter, 1986; Kaplan, 1986).
But, contents of these seminars organized by NME are not effective
due to the fact that these are prepared without taking into consideration
the G/Ts’ real needs and especially branch differentiation (Gökdere
& Küçük, 2003). Literature
shows that project managers of In service education seminars in the G/E
area consist of academics and working groups (Feldhusen, 1986; Wood,
1986). But seminars organized
in an irregular form in the Turkish context are directed by some people
who are not academics (Çepni, Gökdere & Bacanak, 2003).
Thus, contents of these seminars are usually the same and they
result to either being non-effective or waste of money and time.
In addition to all these problems, another important point
neglected in the system is the lack of a system in which G/Ts’
performance inspection can be done. G/C
feel the need to research and learn; thus, G/Ts who will work at these
centers should always renew themselves and be very active (Feldhusen,
1997). This means that G/Ts’
sufficiency and performances should be measured periodically; however
there is not a mechanism in the current Turkish system.
2.
Method
In
this project a case study method was used.
This method provided an opportunity to investigate one aspect of
the research problem; SG/Ts’ difficulties with the G/E at SACs in some
depth and within a limited time (Bell, 1989; Cohen & Manion, 1989).
The problematical situation has been explained in detail in the
first part of the article and the Turkish context has been examined.
The sample consists of ten SG/Ts who work at three SACs - Bayburt,
Sinop and Trabzon - and was introduced with code names such as A, B,
C…K. The sample includes
1/3 of all the SG/Ts who work at the SACs of Turkey, thus, it can be said
that data taken from the sample reflects the Turkish context about G/C’s
education. Data was gathered
with the help of semi-structured interviews conducted with the SG/Ts.
In these interviews, firstly, a series of questions consisted of
five items such as; teachers’ graduate programs, graduate levels,
professional experiences, G/C’s levels taught and concern to academic
studies. Data obtained here
was presented in Table 3.1. Then,
sample teachers were also asked about four critical questions based on the
research purpose in order to determine their ideas on the G/E; teaching
methods used in teaching process, problems faced and expectations of the
related individuals. Interviews
took about twenty-five or thirty minutes and data were recorded at the
same time with a tape-recorder. Interview
data showed that the sample agreed on some ideas and these are combined
with some examination categories as effective learning-teaching methods,
teachers’ roles in the G/E, contradiction about teaching G/C,
teaching materials for the G/E and evaluation in the G/E. Interview findings were analyzed and presented under these
five sub-headings in which SG/Ts stressed throughout interviews and some
small scale comparisons also have been done with the international
literature.
3.
Findings
The data is presented in two parts; findings obtained from profile
questions and examination criteria found out from four critical questions. Profiles
of the SG/Ts who work at the SACs are shown in Table 3.1.
Each SG/T’s profiles such as; graduate program, graduate degree,
professional experiences, teaching level and concern with academic
research were found out. Here
especially, I wanted to examine if SG/Ts are concerned with academic
research because if they were to develop G/C towards research projects,
then they would like doing research or at least concerned with research.
Graduate levels from universities are thought to be important in
teaching G/C, and then this was also examined.
Student teachers are graduates from different note systems in
universities of Turkey. However,
in order to make some comparisons among them, all was changed to a fourth
system in which graduated degree can change between 1 and 4.
Table 3.1 presentation of the gifted science teachers’ professional
profiles is here.
It
is seen from the table 3.1 that the sample has different characteristics;
for example, most of the professional experiences change between two and
ten years, and graduate degree from universities is 2.72, all work in
orientation program and teach between four and ten classes and also 80 %
of them have graduated from faculties of education.
Three of them are concerned with academic research but just two
ones are concerned with educational research.
3.2.
Findings obtained from examination criteria Findings
that were obtained from the interviews conducted with SG/Ts are
interesting from the point of effective learning and teaching methods for
G/C, science teachers’ roles in the G/E, contradiction about teaching
G/C, teaching materials for the
G/E and evaluation in the G/E. Thus,
all the interview data were analyzed to determine SG/Ts’ reflections on
these subjects.
3.2.1.
Effective Learning-Teaching Method For G/C SG/Ts
have different ideas about effective learning and teaching methods for the
G/C. Just one SG/T in the
sample has thought that he had used modern learning theories beforehand
when he was teaching in a normal school and is still using them during his
teaching practices at SACs. However,
five SG/Ts have said that they have known nothing about which are the best
learning and teaching methods for G/C.
Nevertheless, four others explained that they have just a little
knowledge on this subject, but they do not use it in their practices.
Learning methods that are known or used are stressed by SG/Ts as; working
in a group, individual learning, interactive learning, learning with
making/living experiments, computer-based learning and explanative
learning. However, responses
about the best learning methods for G/E have been seen to focus on usually
group working and learning with making/living experiments.
These are followed according to their explanation rations as
computer-based learning and interactive learning.
In addition, SG/Ts have said that they have used different teaching
methods for science courses in schools where they had worked before coming
to SACs, such as question-response interaction, discussion-making,
experiment-making, observation, drama, brain-storming, induction-deduction,
explanation, showings, problem solving and project works.
From the frequency analyzed results, it is seen that all SG/Ts are
agreed on experiment and observation techniques and most of them also
stressed the importance of question and discussion in the G/C’s
education in the SACs. I
can shortly say that SG/Ts have quite different ideas about the best
learning types based on the interview findings about the best learning and
teaching methods of SACs. However,
all of them thought that group working and experiments have a common
usefulness and would help G/C to be successful and achieve SACs’ real
aims. On the other hand,
although project-based learning has been explained as a real aim of SACs
in the document of SACs, it has not been stressed by the SG/Ts in an
effective manner. I think
that this is a result of SG/Ts’ not knowing about project based learning,
so, they still use other teaching methods like they have used before.
Thus, it is required they to learn this method with the help of
sample activities that are also situated at the aims of SACs.
3.2.2.
SG/Ts’ Role In The G/E The
sample SG/Ts all have thought that SG/Ts for the G/E should have some
roles as a guide, supporter and researcher.
Just one G/T, F, explained his role as presenting knowledge to G/C
to expand and increase their viewpoints.
This is an old thought about learning area because in the current
era, learning is mostly identified in the content of constructivist
learning theory, in that learning is explained based on a learner’s
prior experience and ideas and it is independent from an individual.
Literature shows that SG/Ts should have some extra roles as a model
and value instructor, interest maker and functional evaluator throughout
different parts of teaching practices (Sisk, 1987). Thus,
G/Ts should be aware of their roles as also model, evaluator, and a value
educator for the G/C’s education.
3.2.3.
Contradictions About Teaching G/C Half
of the GS/T sample has had some fears about teaching G/C and working in
SACs. Those fears are usually
on the subjects of, children coming to SACs would have more clarity and a
teacher would face large problems while teaching them.
On the other hand, the others have stressed their own and positive
expectations to start with this mission in these centers.
There are some issues SG/Ts face while teaching in the SACs.
These are sequenced as; not exactly recognizing children they teach,
lack of knowledge about modern learning models, lack of obvious knowledge
of the G/E programs and question asking techniques, lack of clarity of the
measurements and evaluation in these institutions, determining the subject
of the project, planning and conducting a project, supporting at the
academic levels, lack of knowledge about a foreign language thus, not
utilizing them. SG/Ts expect
educational researchers to help them in some areas such as determining a
project subject, taking courses about planning and conducting projects,
interacting with the universities, giving courses about the content of
science education for the G/C, learning about materials and sources in
which they are not sufficient, getting guidance service from the experts,
taking courses with the contents of identifications of laboratory
approaches and development of laboratory skills, getting support for the
academic studies, and also taking courses which include activities along
with the contents of modern teaching theories.
They show that SACs do not have enough materials for both teachers
and children to use, and teachers have not been educated for these
institutions as expected to achieve this mission based on its real
purposes. For example, SG/Ts
are weak at measurement and assessment of G/C, planning and conducting
projects and also see themselves as just the current program’s
applicants, not as researchers. However,
for teachers to also act as researchers, it is important to conduct the
profession based on its aims.
3.2.4.
Teaching Materials for The G/E SG/Ts
have explained that some helpful materials for teaching in the SACs are
books and notebooks which they have used in pre service education, also
computer programs, laboratory books and especially science-technology
journals including all technological developments in the world and
published in Turkey. Research
reports on subject areas are not considered, as something needs to be used.
It is believed that if G/C are to plan and conduct projects and
become keen on research, SG/Ts also need to be keen on academic research
on concerning subject areas.
3.2.5.
Evaluation In The G/E Sample
SG/Ts have some important ideas about assessment of the G/C.
They have expressed that they would want a G/C to give different
examples related to a studied subject area and write their understandings
with their own sentences. They
also thought to look at children’s experiment reports, encourage them to
think, talk and ask some questions in why and how types and, make written
or oral examinations. Teaching
and learning methods all used by G/Ts are seen to occur as a result of the
individual’s professional experiences and not based on any objective
criteria, whereas especially related to the measurement and evaluation
techniques based on determined criteria is an important factor to increase
and develop the effectiveness of the assessment practices and learning
processes aimed to reach. However,
from the teachers’ own sentences and explanations I understood that SG/Ts
think of assessment as measurement of G/C’s knowledge or skill.
But, it is required to measure G/C’s product rather than
knowledge or skills he/she has, and assessment in the modern meaning is
already this. Thus, science
teachers in the SACs need more knowledge about this area.
4.
Results and Discussion
It
is understood that the selection process of teachers for the SACs is not
identified obviously in the instruction published by the NME.
Thus, many different applications in those areas are seen (Gökdere
& Küçük, 2003). SG/Ts
in the SACs had mostly graduated from educational faculties and their
professional experiences range between two and ten years.
This shows that all of them are at the beginning or at the middle-point
of their teaching profession. Related
to this subject, there are some research findings which show that new
teachers at the beginning of their teaching profession are more successful,
creative, initiative and keen on research (Renzulli, 1985).
The important thing to be taken into consideration is that SG/Ts in
these centers, due to lack of branch teachers at all learning levels,
teach not only the children of a determined age-group but all the children
between fourth and tenth classes. I
believe that G/C’s needs can change due to their learning levels.
Thus, G/Ts should have some different characteristics according to
children’s learning levels. It
is seen that teachers do not exactly know the modern teaching and learning
theories. Thus, it is not
possible for teachers to apply these theories in their courses as expected.
In a study done by Çepni and his colleagues (Çepni, Şan, Gökdere
& Küçük, 2001) science teachers that work at the primary schools
explained that they do not have sufficient knowledge about modern teaching
theories and that is why they cannot apply the required practices in their
science courses. On the other
hand, just knowing these theories does not mean they are certainly going
to be used. Thus, as well as
knowing how to use them, teachers should be also aware of their importance
and contribution to the G/C’s development and improvement in
intellectual area. Modern
teaching theories especially of Ausebel, Gagne, Bruner, Piaget and Kelly
should be introduced to the SG/Ts and they should be encouraged and
supported to use these in their science courses.
Colette and Chiappetta (1989) explained that these teaching
theories would have positive reflections on science teachers’ classroom
teaching practices. It
is also understood that SG/Ts with some individual preferences use
different kinds of teaching methods in their science courses. These methods are understood to occur as a result of an
individual’s professional experiences and not based on any objective
criteria. Especially
measurement and evaluation techniques which are based on determined
criteria have an important mean to increase and develop the effectiveness
of the assessment practices and also learning processes to be reached (Angelo
& Cross, 1993). In the
preparation of questions for the G/C, SG/Ts should use thinking keys,
questions matrix and Bloom taxonomy (Painter, 1996). SG/Ts
have mostly used their university course books, course notes and TUBITAK (Scientific
Academy of Turkey) sources as teaching materials.
Here, it is important to explain that at the interviews some of the
sample teachers said that they were keen on educational research, such as
chemistry education, but, they do not start to reach and read any academic
works in this area. Science
teachers working at the SACS, like teachers working at the normal kinds of
schools, cannot use Internet contexts and educational technologies
effectively as teaching sources. This
is maybe as a result of the Internet being a new technology to both normal
kinds of school and SACs’ teachers, and also it has not much use in
Turkish schools. However, in
the present too much initiative is seen to make its use widespread into
all school types. G/Ts should
be informed about how to reach periodical publishing and internet sites
about G/C’s education in other countries with the help of an organized
course. Another important problem is that, most of the SG/Ts’ not
following the development on their subject areas is due to a foreign
language problem. Teachers
demand some amount of help from the experts about the subjects’ areas in
which they are not sufficient and help In service courses that identify
laboratory approaches and increase laboratory skills, guidance and
research, planning and conducting research projects.
Turkish teachers do not plan or conduct research projects and this
is an important and widespread problem (Küçük, 2002).
But, this problem for the SG/Ts must be solved as soon as possible.
If SG/Ts are weak at research design, it is not appropriate to
expect them to develop G/C in research area and also make them scientists.
One of the aims of SACs is to grow G/C as scientists.
If
I turn back to sample’s responses about teaching and learning methods
and also assessment techniques used in G/E, also roles to have, shortly it
is seen that there is a contradiction between the Turkish and other
contexts on the education of G/C and G/Ts.
This is a clue of the Turkish SACs not achieving their aims and as
long as the current practices are not changed, the results will not be as
they were hoped for.
5.
Implications
In
this work I have examined the SG/Ts’ problems in the Turkish context and
presented some suggestions for them.
However, the sample does not include all the Turkish context and
thus, more expanded studies should be done at the other SACs and also with
the other subject area teachers. Some
criteria such as age, academic achievement level, graduate program,
professional experience, curriculum vitae and appropriate training can be
used in the process of SG/Ts’ selection.
However, an appropriate selection process should be developed while
selecting teaching staff who would educate the G/C and different criteria
should be used according to branch differences (Feldhusen, 1997). Some
deficiencies were determined from SG/Ts’ interview data, thus, the SG/Ts’
performances should be measured with the help of valid and reliable
assessment scales continuously. In
addition, cooperation between the National Ministry of Education and
universities is quite important. In
the selection process of the G/Ts, graduate degree from a university
should be considered. Teachers
are not fully aware of the giftedness concept and G/C’s education.
Thus, meaning of the gifted concept and aims of capacity
development programs should be explained for all G/Ts in detail and G/Ts
should be aware of their roles like having certain differences from the
normal school teachers (Sisk, 1987).
G/Ts should not exceed limited years old and be in a level to be
able to address G/C’s cognitive developments.
Teachers’ numbers should be increased at these centers and
teachers should be directed towards developing determined age groups of
children’s abilities. In
addition SG/Ts should be supported to complete their post graduated
education and required appropriate circumstances should be provided for
them. This may help them to
plan and conduct projects with the G/C in SACs.
References
Angelo, A., &
Cross. K. P. (1993). A Handbook for
College Teachers, Classroom Assesment Techniques, (2nd
Edition) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Archambault., F. X.,
Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W et al. (1993). Classroom
practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students, Journal
for the education of the gifted 16(2), 103-119. Bell. J. (1989). Doing
Your Research Project: A Guide for First Time Researches in Education and
Social Science, The Open University Press. Betts, G. (1986).
The autonomous learner for the gifted and talented. In J.S. Renzulli(ed) System
and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp
27-56) Mansfield Center, CT: Creativ Learning Press. Çepni,
S. & Gökdere, M. (2002, May). Profiles
of The Gifted Students In Turkey, Education: Changing Times, Changing
needs” First international conference on education. Faculty of education
Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimagusa, Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus. Çepni,
S., Gökdere, M., & Küçük, M. (2002, September). Development of sample activities with Purdue model for gifted students
at science area, Fifth National Science and Mathematics Education
Symposium, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, in Turkey. Çepni,
S., Şan, M. H., Gökdere, M., & Küçük, M. (2001, September). Development
of sample activities in science teaching based on constructivist 7E Model,
Science education symposium at the beginning of new century,
University of Maltepe, İstanbul, in Turkey. Clifford. J. A.,
Runions. T., &
Smyth. E. (1986). The Learning Enrichment Service (LES): A Participatory
Model For Gifted Adolescents. In J.S. Renzulli(ed) System
and models for developing programs for
the gifted and talented Mansfield Center, CT: Creativ Learning Press. Cohen.
L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research
Methods in Education New York, Routledge. Colette,
A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science
Instruction In The Middle and Secondary Schools, Merrill Publishing
Company, USA. Feldhusen, J. F.
(1997). Educating teachers for work
with talented youth. (In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds).
Handbook of gifted education (2nd Edition p. 547-552) Boston: Allyn & Bacon). Feldhussen, J. F.
(1986). A Conception of Giftedness: Conception of Giftedness. In RJ.
Steinberg, J.E Davidson (Eds), Conception
of Giftedness. New York: Cambridge University press. Feldhussen, J., &
Kolloff, P. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage enrichment model for gifted
education at the elementary level In J.S. Renzulli (ed) System And Models
For Developing Programs For The Gifted And Talented Mansfield Center, CT:
Creativ Learning Press. Gallagher, J.
(1998). Accountability for Gifted Students, Phi
Delta Kappan, 79 (10) 739-741. Ganschow, L., Weber,
B. D., &
Davis, M. (1984). Pre service teacher Preparation For Mainstreaming, Exceptional
Children, 51(1) 74-76. Gökdere, M., &
Çepni, S. (2003). Teachers’ Role in Values Education for Gifted
Children, Journal of Values
Education,1(2) 93-107. Gökdere, M., &
Küçük, M. (2003). Science Education of Gifted Students at Intellectual
Area: A Case For Science and art centers, Educational
Science: Theory & Practice, 3(1) 101-124. Jordan,
E. T. (1962). The
Exceptional Child. Charles E. Merrill Books Inc. Columbus. Ohio.
Küçük, M. (2002).
Implementation of an action research
course program for science teachers: a case study, Unpublished master
dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey. Maryland, S. P.
(1971). Education of gifted and
talented (2 Vols), Washington D.C: US Government Printing office. Painter, J. (1996).
Questioning Techniques for Gifted Students. The
Australian Association For The Education Of The Gifted And Talented.
Proceedings From The National Conference In Adelaide, South Australia Renzulli, J. S.
(1999). What is
thing Called Giftedness and How Do We Develop it? A twenty- Five Year
Perspective, Journal for the
Education of Gifted, 23 (1) 3-54. Renzulli, J.(1985).
Are teacher of gifted specialist? A land mark decision on employment
practices in special education for gifted. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 29, 24-29. Schultz, R. A.
(2000). Examining the Effects of Block scheduling on Gifted and Talented
Student, Gifted Child Today 23
(5) 24-33. Schwizer, V. (1994).
A Rich offering of Enrichment Programs, European
Education 26(3) 64-69. Sherwood, M. (1996).
Pre service teachers' attitudes to and awareness of gifted learning
disabled pre-scholars. The
Australian Association for the education of the gifted and talented.
Proceedings from the national conference in Adelaide, South Australia. Sisk,
D. (1987). Creative Teaching of
Gifted. Mc Grav-Hill Book Company. Witty, P.A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In N.B. Henry (Ed), Education of gifted. Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the study of education, Part 2. Chicago University of Chicago Press Appendix
1. Interview Questions
1.
How can the best learning be constructed in G/E? 2.
How do you explain your role in the G/E as a science teacher? 3.
Which are the most helpful sources for your studies in
the SACs? 4.
Which are the most important problems you have faced while you work
at the SACs up to now?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
format