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

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(3) 316-335

Views of Science and Art Center (SAC) Graduates on SAC

İsmail Satmaz

pp. 316 - 335   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.600.15   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2308-12-0002.R1

Published online: September 30, 2023  |   Number of Views: 49  |  Number of Download: 150


Abstract

In Türkiye, Science and Art Centers (SACs) are the institutions where gifted students receive the most education. The aim of this research is to gather opinions and experiences related to various aspects of SAC, including identification, educational programs, problems, advantages and disadvantages, teachers, family approach, and benefits of being a graduate. In this study, the case study design, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The participant group of the study consists of 12 students who graduated from SAC. Data were collected with a semi-structured interview form developed by the researcher and analyzed by content analysis method. According to the research results, graduate students emphasized that the selection and placement process for SAC should be based on more scientific grounds. In addition, they stated that SAC’s educational programs have positively contributed to their careers. Students expressed that the support of their families is one of the most important factors for them. However, they also expressed that the physical and material facilities of SAC need to be improved. Researchers are recommended to conduct longitudinal studies on SAC graduate students.

Keywords: Gifted students, Science and art center, Science and art center graduates


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Satmaz, I. (2023). Views of Science and Art Center (SAC) Graduates on SAC . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), 316-335. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2023.600.15

Harvard
Satmaz, I. (2023). Views of Science and Art Center (SAC) Graduates on SAC . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), pp. 316-335.

Chicago 16th edition
Satmaz, Ismail (2023). "Views of Science and Art Center (SAC) Graduates on SAC ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (3):316-335. doi:10.29329/epasr.2023.600.15.

References
  1. Altun, T., & Vural, S. (2012). Evaluation of the views of teachers and administrators of a science and art center (SAC) about professional development and school improvement. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(42), 152-177. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esosder/issue/6156/82730 [Google Scholar]
  2. Belur, A. (2014). The investigation of guidance needs of parents of students who are accepted or not accepted to BILSEM [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bursa Uludağ University. [Google Scholar]
  3. Çalışkan, K., & Baloglu, M. (2023). An examination of the self-efficacy levels for gifted education among teachers who nominated students to BİLSEM versus who did not. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (55), 210-230. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deubefd/issue/76537/1214243 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chan, D. W. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The hong kong perspective. Roeper   Review, 23(4), 197-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554098 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Eker, A., Kurnaz, A., & Sarı, H. (2017). Üstün yetenekli öğrencileri tanılama süreci. U. Sak (Eds.), Üstün yeteneklilerin tanılanması. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  6. Esen, S., Gümüşer, B., Ayverdi, L., & Avcu, Y. E. (2019). STEM from teachers, administrators, parents and gifted and talented students' perspective. Journal of STEAM Education, 2(2), 1-27. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/steam/issue/51544/637294 [Google Scholar]
  7. Feldhusen, J. F. (1985). The teacher of gifted students. Gifted Education International, 3(2), 87-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294850030020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Flutter, J. (2006). This place could help you learn’: Student participation in creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58(2), 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600584116 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Ford, D. Y., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested multicultural characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23(4), 235-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Girgin, D. (2020a). Evaluation of project-based learning process of gifted children via reflective journals. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 772-796. [Google Scholar]
  11. Girgin, D. (2020b). Competencies required for supporting gifted students: Classroom teachers’ views. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 19(74), 895-915. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.641876 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Gökdere, M., & Çepni, S. (2005). Üstün yeteneklilerin fen bilimleri öğretmenlerine yönelik bir hizmet içi eğitim uygulama ve değerlendirme çalışması. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 271-296. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tebd/issue/26123/275184 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gökdemir, S. (2017). The evaluation of gifted student's diagnostic process according to teacher, parents and student's ideas in our country [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Kayişdağ, E., & Melekoğlu, M. A. (2019). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinin eğitim programlarının öğrenci görüşlerine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 175-202. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.548321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Kazu, İ. Y., & Şenol, C. (2012). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (Bilsem Örneği). E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 13-35. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuzu, İ. Y., & Şenol, C. (2012). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM Örneği). E-İnternational Journal of Educational Research,3(2), 13-35. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kerr, B., & Sodano, S. (2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 168-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703011002004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Knox, H. (2017). Using writing strategies in math to increase metacognitive skills for the gifted learner. Gifted Child Today, 40(1), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516675904 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Kontaş, H. & Yağcı, E. (2016). The effectiveness of the in-service training program developed on the basis of the needs of the teachers of science and art centers in the area of curriculum development. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 902-923. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/aibuefd/issue/24917/263020 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kurnaz, A., & Ekici, S. G. (2020). BİLSEM tanılama sürecinde kullanılan zeka testlerinin psikolojik danışmanların ve BİLSEM öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Çocuk ve Medeniyet, 5(10), 365-399. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cm/issue/59377/850922 [Google Scholar]
  22. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Baskıdan Çeviri). (Çeviri Editörü: S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 272-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2016). Science and art centers directive. Journal of Announcements: November 2016/2017. Retrieved from: http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/1810.pdf [Google Scholar]
  25. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2023). Educational programs applied in SACs.  Retrieved from https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/bilsemlerde-uygulanan-egitim-ve-programlar/icerik/1935 [Google Scholar]
  26. Öğütülmüş, K., & Sarı, H. (2014). Evaluation of the problems faced by teachers and students in science and art centers. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2014(2), 254-265. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/goputeb/issue/7322/95823 [Google Scholar]
  27. Peterson, J. S. (2006). Addressing counseling needs of gifted students. Professional School Counseling, 10(1_suppl). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0601001S06 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Sarıtaş, E., Şahin, Ü., & Çatalbaş, G. (2019). Science and Art Centers (SAC) according to the parents. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c1s.5m [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Satmaz, İ., & Evin Gencel, İ. (2016). Issue of in-service training of the teachers assigned in science and art centers. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (42), 59-73. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/deubefd/issue/35757/399520 [Google Scholar]
  30. Stake, R. R. (2005). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yumuş, A., & Toptaş, V. (2011). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinin amacına uygun işleyişinin değerlendirilmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 80-88. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yüreğilli Göksu, D., Yalçın, S., Gelişli, Y., & Taşpınar, M. (2020). Effectiveness of the program regarding innovative methods and techniques developed for the teachers of specially gifted students. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 55(4), 2704-2720. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.20.12.1501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]