International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(3) 310-335

Gifted Students’ Analogies towards Science and Arts Centres

Adem Doğan & Seyhan Paydar

pp. 310 - 335   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.270.15   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2005-06-0001.R1

Published online: September 24, 2020  |   Number of Views: 74  |  Number of Download: 232


Abstract

This study investigated the gifted students’ analogical perceptions of science and arts centres (SACs). Qualitative research method has been adopted. The data were collected from 4th and 5th graders selected through the purposive sampling through an interview form developed by the researchers. The participant students’ analogical expressions for SACs were analysed through the content analysis method. The students were required to make analogies between SACs and eight themes (e.g. cars, games, occupations, clothes, subjects, stories, scientists and relatives) by justifying them. The content analysis results of their responses indicated that the gifted students held quite positive perceptions of SACs and that these centres fulfil the goals and objectives identified by MoNE.  SACs were mostly compared to speedy cars, challenging games that require use of mind and strategic thinking, warm clothes, occupations that require self-sacrifice, patience and dedication, numerical courses, close relatives, the most popular stories/ tales of the world literature and the scientists most of whom lived in 19th and 20th century. This study is important in terms of pointing out that there is a positive relationship between the attitudes of SAC students towards educational institutions and their academic success.

Keywords: Gifted Students, Analogy, Science and Arts Centre, Special Education


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Dogan, A. & Paydar, S. (2020). Gifted Students’ Analogies towards Science and Arts Centres . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(3), 310-335. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.270.15

Harvard
Dogan, A. and Paydar, S. (2020). Gifted Students’ Analogies towards Science and Arts Centres . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(3), pp. 310-335.

Chicago 16th edition
Dogan, Adem and Seyhan Paydar (2020). "Gifted Students’ Analogies towards Science and Arts Centres ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (3):310-335. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.270.15.

References
  1. Adediwura, A. A. (2011). The development and confirmatory factor analysis of a scale for the measurement of gifted students’ attitude towards mathematics. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 52-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v1n1p52 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkaya, E. (2012). Ortaöğretim öğrenci ve öğretmenlerinin okul ve ideal okul algılarının metafor yoluyla analizi. [Analysing secondary school students and teachers’ perceptions of school and ideal school through metaphors]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aslan, H., & Doğan, Ü. (2016). The metaphorical perception of gifted students in terms their school and the art and science centers in which they participate: A comparative study. Abant İzzet Baysal Universiy Faculty of Education Journal, 16 (2), 335-350. [Google Scholar]
  4. Altıntaş, E., & Özdemir, A. Ş. (2009). The effect of teaching with the mathematics activity based on Purdue model on the achievement and critical thinking skills of gifted students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ata, B. (2008). Türk Tarih Öğretmen Adaylarının Tarih Eğitiminde Analoji Anlayışları [Turkish History Teacher Candidates' Understanding of Analogy in History Education]. Mustafa Safran, Dursun Dilek (Eds.), In 21. Identity, citizenship and history education in the 21st century (pp. 302-316). Yeni İnsan. [Google Scholar]
  6. Atlı, H., & Balay, R. (2016). Student perceptions towards sustainability of education of gifted students in science and art center. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal, 17(2), 191-205.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Aydın, F., Coşkun, M., Kaya, H., & Erdönmez, İ. (2011). Gifted students’ attitudes towards environment: A case study from Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(7), 1876-1883. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.288.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Aydoğdu, E. (2008). İlköğretim okullarındaki öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin sahip oldukları okul algıları ile ideal okul algılarının metaforlar (mecazlar) yardımıyla analizi. [Analysing school perceptions and ideal school perceptions of students and teachers in primary schools through metaphors]. Institute of Science, Eskişehir. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barna, M., Tarlach, G., & Scharping, N. (2017). The 10 greatest scientists of all time. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-10-greatest-scientists-of-all-time  [Google Scholar]
  10. Bildiren, A. & Türkkanı, B. (2013). Well and unwell structures of science and art centers from the perspectives of gifted students and their demands for change. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(2), 128-135. [Google Scholar]
  11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analiz el kitabı [Handbook for data analysis in social sciences research]. Pegem Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cerit, Y. (2006). School metaphors: The view of students, teachers and administrators. Educational Science Theory and Practice, 6(3), 692-699. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chan, D. W. (2005). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 211-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900303.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Çağlar, D. (1986). Üstün zekalı çocuklar [The gifted children]. Modern Education, 11(115), 12-18.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Çapan, B. E. (2010). Teacher candidates’ metaphoric perceptions of gifted students. Journal of International Social Research, 3(12), 140-154. [Google Scholar]
  16. Çetinkaya, M., Taşpinar, M., & Özdemir, M. Ç. (2019). Evaluation of mathematical analogies developed by seventh grade students. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 18(69), 288-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.17755/esosder.444019 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361-374. [Google Scholar]
  18. Davaslıgil, Ü. (1991). Üstün olma niteliğini kazanma [Becoming giftedness]. Education and Science, 15(82), 62-67. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/ 6068/2241 [Google Scholar]
  19. Demir, C. E. (2007). Metaphors as a reflection of middle school students' perceptions of school: A cross-cultural analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(2), 89-107. [Google Scholar]
  20. Doğan, A., & Çetin, A. (2018). Investigation of the perceptions of gifted students on the problem solving attitudes and processes. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 7(4), 510-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.459434 [Google Scholar]
  21. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science education, 75(6), 649-672. [Google Scholar]
  22. Erisen, Y., Sahin, M., Birben, F. Y., & Yalin, H. S. (2016). Motivation Levels of gifted students and their metaphorical perceptions of school. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 553-561. [Google Scholar]
  23. Erdoğan, A., & Yemenli, E. (2019). Gifted students’ attitudes towards mathematics: a qualitative multidimensional analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(1), 37-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9562-5.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferre, F. (1967) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ed. Paul Edwards. Macmillian Inc. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gagné, F (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education). pp. 60-74. Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gallagher, J. J. (2008). Psychology, psychologists, and gifted students. In Handbook of Giftedness in Children (pp. 1-11). Springer Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (2001). Gifted students' perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 115-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500205.  [Google Scholar]
  29. Gök, B., & Erdoğan, T. (2010). Investigation of pre-service teachers' perceptions about concept of technology through metaphor analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2).  [Google Scholar]
  30. Hakkoymaz, S., & Uygun, N. (2017). Gifted children in Dede Korkut stories. Journal of Education, Theory and Practical Research, 3(2), 22-34. [Google Scholar]
  31. Harman, G., & Çökelez, A. (2017). Role and Importance of Analogies in Science Education. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronics Journal of Electrics Science and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 340-363. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kahyaoğlu, M., & Pesen, A. (2013). Visual perception of gifted students regarding investigation of democracy. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 3(1), 38-49.  [Google Scholar]
  33. Kesercioğlu, T., Yılmaz, H., Huyugüzel-Çavaş, P. & Çavaş, B. (2004). The usage of analogies in teaching primary science education: “Examples”. Ege Journal of Education, 5(1), 35-44. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kitsantas, A., Bland, L., & Chirinos, D. S. (2017). Gifted students’ perceptions of gifted programs: An Inquiry into their academic and social-emotional functioning.  Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 266-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162353217717033.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Kunt, K, & Tortop, H. S. (2013). The metaphoric perceptions of gifted students about science and art centers in Turkey. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(2), 117-127. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kurnaz, A. (2018). Examining the status of value observation among gifted students and their perceptions of these values. Journal of National Education, 47(Special Issue), 413-436. [Google Scholar]
  37. Leana-Tascilar, M. Z. (2016). An experimental study related to planning abilities of gifted and average students. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 6(2), 55-70. [Google Scholar]
  38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition). Calif: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2016). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Yönergesi [Directives for Science and Arts Centre]. Ankara. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_10/07031350_bilsem_yonergesi.pdf   [Google Scholar]
  40. Mullet, D. R., Kettler, T., & Sabatini, A. M. (2017). Gifted students’ conceptions of their high school STEM education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 60-92.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745156.  [Google Scholar]
  41. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2012). Students' pre-and post-teaching analogical reasoning when they draw their analogies. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 429-458. [Google Scholar]
  42. Newby, T. J., Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (1995). Instructional analogies and the learning of concepts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 5-18. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ogurlu, Ü. (2014). Reading interests, attitudes and critical thinking skills of gifted children. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 29-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000197.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Ogurlu, Ü., Öpengin, E., & Hızlı, E. (2015). Metaphorical perceptions of gifted students related to school and teacher. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 46, 67-83. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/56099  [Google Scholar]
  45. Opstad, L., & Årethun, T. (2019). Choice of courses in mathematics at upper-secondary school and attitudes towards mathematics among business students: The case of Norway. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(7), 228-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.7.15  [Google Scholar]
  46. Orgill, M. K. & Bodner, G. (2007). An analysis of biochemistry students’ use of analogies. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(4), 244–254.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.66 [Google Scholar]
  47. Orodho, A. J., & Kombo, D. (2003). Essential of education and social science research methods. Pauline Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x  [Google Scholar]
  49. Özdemir, M., & Kalaycı, H. (2013). A study on school engagement and metaphorical school perception: The case of Çankırı province. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2125-2137. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pollio, H. R. (2018). Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In Metaphor (pp. 231-253). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Potts, J. A. (2018). Profoundly gifted students’ perceptions of virtual classrooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(1), 58-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986218801075.  [Google Scholar]
  52. Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five-year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 3-54. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rita, R. D., & Martin-Dunlop, C. S. (2011). Perceptions of the learning environment and associations with cognitive achievement among gifted biology students. Learning Environ Research, 14(1), 25-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9080-4.  [Google Scholar]
  54. Rudasill, K. M., Adelson, J., L., Callahan, C. M., Houlihan, D. V., & Keizer, B. M. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of parenting styles: Associations with cognitive ability, sex, race, and age. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 15-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460886.  [Google Scholar]
  55. Saban, A. (2008). Metaphors about school. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 55(55), 459-496. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sak, U. (2016). EPTS Curriculum Model in the Education of Gifted Students. Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 683-694. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259441.  [Google Scholar]
  57. Sak, U. (2010). Üstün zekâlılar [Gifted students]. Maya Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  58. Su, Ş., Sağlam, A., & Mutlu, Y. (2017). Comparison of perception levels of science and art center students about “BILSEM” and “school concepts with metaphors. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 4(3), 91-108. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jgedc/ issue/38703/449459   [Google Scholar]
  59. Talas, S., Talas, Y., & Sönmez, A. (2013). Problems of gifted students goes on science and art center. International Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences (ITJES), 1 (1), 42-50. [Google Scholar]
  60. Tearle, O. (2020). 10 of the best fairy tales everyone should read. Interesting Literature. Accessed on January 6, 2020. https://interestingliterature.com/2017/07/10-of-the-best-fairy-tales-everyone-should-read/ [Google Scholar]
  61. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994a). The nature and extent of analogies in secondary chemistry textbooks. Instructional Science, 22(1), 61-74. [Google Scholar]
  62. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994b). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers' analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 227-242. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tischler, K., & Vialle, W. J. (2009). Gifted students' perceptions of the characteristics of effective teachers. In D. Wood (Eds.), The Gifted Challenge: Challenging the Gifted (pp. 115-124). Nswagtc Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  64. Tortop, H. S. (2013). Meaningful field trip in education of the renewable energy technologies. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 1(1), 8-15. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/479084  [Google Scholar]
  65. Uğur, G. (2009). Master's theses and doctoral dissertations on misconceptions in mathematics and science education in Turkey: A thematic analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis. Atatürk University, Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  66. Uzun, A. (2006). The relationship between talented or gifted students' attitudes towards social studies course and their academic achievement. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.  [Google Scholar]
  67. Vogelaar, B., Resing, W. C., & Stad, F. E. (2020). Dynamic testing of children's solving of analogies: differences in potential for learning of gifted and average-ability children. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 19(1), 43-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/JCEP-D-19-00042 [Google Scholar]
  68. Vogelaar, B., Sweijen, S. W., & Resing, W. (2019). Gifted and Average-Ability Children’s Potential for Solving Analogy Items. Journal of Intelligence, 7(3), 4-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence7030019 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wu, J. (2018). An investigation of early college entrants’ social development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa. https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/6524 [Google Scholar]
  70. Yüner, B., & Özdemir, M. (2017). Examination of the relationship between metaphoric school perception and school dropout tendency according to students’ opinions. Gazi University Gazi Journal of Education, 37(3), 1041-1060. [Google Scholar]
  71. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods]. Ankara: Seçkin. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yılmaz, A., Esentürk, O. K., Tekkurşun-Demir, G., & İlhan, E. L. (2017). Metaphoric perception of gifted students about physical education course and physical education teachers. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(2), 220-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n2p220  [Google Scholar]
  73. Zedan, R., & Bitar, J. (2017). Mathematically gifted students: Their characteristics and unique needs. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(4), 236-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.375954.  [Google Scholar]