Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 13(1) • Winter • 444-453 ©2013 Educational Consultancy and Research Center www.edam.com.tr/estp The Role of Teacher and Family Opinions in Identifying Gifted Kindergarten Children and the Consistence of These Views with Children’s Actual Performance H. Elif DAĞLIOĞLUa Senem SUVERENb Gazi University Abdüssamet Dik Preschool Abstract This study was conducted in order to identify gifted children attending kindergartens of elemen- tary schools, determine how successful families and teachers were in selecting these children, and see how consistent their opinions were with children’s actual performance. Participants were children attending kindergartens of elementary schools, their teachers and parents. The identifi- cation procedure used in the first stage of this relational survey study involved Parent Observation (POF) and Teacher Observation Forms (TOF) for teachers and/or parents to nominate potentially gifted children, the Primary Mental Abilities Test 5-7 (PMA 5-7) in the second stage and Goodeno- ugh-Harris Draw-a-Person Test for children. A total of 113 children out of 600 kindergarteners in central Düzce were nominated by their teachers and/or families, went through the identification procedures, and constituted the sample. This research indicated that teacher and parent opinions had a 44.3% success rate in determining gifted children (50 children). It was found that families were better than teachers in identifying gifted children; teachers made more realistic evaluati- ons of children’s performance as shown by tests and scores; but children’s actual performance was much better than teacher and family opinions. No meaningful relationship existed between the PMA 5-7 and Goodenough-Harris Test scores of children who were identified as gifted. The Goodenough-Harris Draw-a-Person Test was included in the study to support the results of the PMA 5-7 Group Intelligence Test. The lack of a relationship between scores obtained from these two may be attributed to the facts that Turkish children started preschool education with a delay and were generally given little or no chance by their families to practice activities for thin motor muscle development on their own. Key Words Pre-school Period, Gifted Children, Identification of Gifted Children. Child development is considerably fast during the pre-school period which covers 0-6 years (Arı, * This research is produced from Senem Suveren’s 2003; Oktay, 2000). Therefore, it is important to master thesis. monitor during this period whether children have a H. Elif DAĞLIOĞLU, Ph.D., currently an assistant the developmental features in line with normal professor at the Department of Preschool Edu- development standards. Although children with cation. Her research interests gifted children’s special needs who develop differently than other identification and education, preschool children’s children require special treatment, they show many drawing development, teacher competencies. similarities in terms of educational opportunities Correspondence: Gazi University, Faculty of Gazi they should be offered (Metin, 2000). It is not only Education, Preschool Education Department, a necessity but an obligation to identify potentially Teknikokullar, Ankara/Turkey. E-mail: edagliog- gifted children in the preschool period during [email protected] Phone: +90 312 202 8151. which development is at its fastest and to enable b Senem SUVEREN, M.A., Abdüssamet Dik Kinder- them to maximize their abilities, interest and skills garten Kaynaşlı, Düzce/Turkey. (Dağlıoğlu, 2010). DAĞLIOĞLU, SUVEREN / The Role of Teacher and Family Opinions in Identifying Gifted Kindergarten Children and... Giftedness fine giftedness. Munro (2001), on the other hand, tried to clarify the term by making a distinction From the Enderun Schools established during Ot- between intelligent students, who display outstand- toman times until the 1869 study by Galton on the ing skill in fields of instruction and gifted students, concept of “intelligent”, no significant develop- who display outstanding skill in certain fields even ment occurred around the world in this field. In without direct instruction. The terms “intelligent” early studies, the superiority of intelligence (IQ) and “gifted” seem to be mostly used in public insti- led to the terms intelligent and gifted, while people tution strategies and the research literature (CCEA, good at arts and music were labelled talented (Enç, 2006; Ziegler, Stoeger, & Vialle, 2012). Ziegler et al. Çağlar, & Özsoy, 1975; Merrill & Orlansky, 1984). (2012) state that the definition of giftedness is still A pioneer in the field, Terman (1925) defined top 2% scorers of standard intelligence tests as “intel- problematic and these problems can only be solved ligent”. Based heavily on IQ classification, this type by making an eclectic definition. In their defini- of labeling lost its importance starting from the tion, they emphasized the developmental nature mid-20th century when scientists started to evalu- of giftedness, ways of learning, and the need to ate intelligence holistically and developmentally maximize development (Burge,1993; Fetzer, Shatz, (Akarsu, 2001). & Schlesinger, 1991; Sager, 2000; Subotnik, Olsze- wski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011; Ziegler & Vialle, in Chronologically, the education of gifted children press). started in 1972 in the US with a report revealing the minimum standards in most states (Marland, Today, Jung (2012) focuses on the relationship be- 1972) and defining gifted children as those “who tween success and talent by drawing on Gagne’s display outstanding performance in one or more of (2004; 2009) studies, and claims that those who the following areas: General mental abilities, a spe- cannot continually and individually succeed in a cific talent in a certain academic field, creative and certain field in adult life lose their gifted label. productive thinking, leadership skills, talent in visual Studies to date have used the terms “gift” and “tal- performance arts, motor skills”. ent” as interchangeable but experts attempt to dis- Following this definition made in the US, Renzulli tinguish the two (Heller, Mönks, Sternberg, & Sub- (1986) analyzed people that showed extraordinary otnik, 2000; Heller & Schofield, 2008; Sternberg & success throughout their lives, and claimed that Davidson, 2005) and to identify cases that do not giftedness was not merely related with intelligence fall under the heading of giftedness (Freeman, Raf- but with motivation which includes ability, creativ- fan, & Warwick, 2010; Peterson & Mann, 2009). ity and task commitment in one or several areas. In Turkey, the 1st Special Education Council was Gagne (1991) claimed that giftedness points to hu- held in 1991 by the Ministry of Education, which man tendencies such as mental and creative talents. defined gifted children as those who have been He added that talent can be displayed in a field such “shown to display outstanding general and/or specific as math, literature or music and that a full defini- performance as compared to their peers by field ex- tion of the term is rather difficult to make (Gagne, perts”. This definition was revised in the 2006 Spe- 1995). cial Education Services Regulation as “individuals that display a higher performance than their peers Morelock (1992) approached the concept from in intelligence, creativity, arts, sports, leadership ca- a developmental point of view and defined it as pacity or certain academic fields” (MEB, 2006). “asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity com- Attempting to draw a conceptual framework of bine to create inner experiences and awareness that giftedness, Davaslıgil (2009) studied the terms are qualitatively and quantitatively different from common in the field globally and in Turkey, and the norm”. Dabrowski (1996) stated that there were concluded that the following three were prevalent: differences in the intensity of reactions to outside gifted children, intelligent children, and talented or inside stimuli depending on the developmental children. potential of individuals. He claimed there were five overexcitabilities called psychomotor, emotional, imaginational, intellectual and sensual intensities. Identification of Giftedness Freeman (2000) and Winstanley (2004) argued that In parallel with the changes in other areas, pre- giftedness is viewed like an inherent intuition, and school education has also gradually gained more that the term “skilled” and its variations better de- significance. Identification and education of young 445 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE gifted children confronts us as one of the most im- also predominantly taken into consideration IQ portant problems in this area (Parkinson, 1990; and standardized test scores in the identification Pfeiffer, 2002; Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2003; Pfeiffer procedures for admission into giftedness programs & Petscher, 2008; Sankar-DeLeeuw, 2002, 2004; (Burns & O’Leary, 2004; Castellano, 2002; Kogan, Silverman, 1997-2004). Recent studies on the hu- 2001). With respect to the identification of gifted man brain have shown that experiences given to students, it has been established that there is a individuals early on in life contribute to the growth correlation between success and IQ scores (Ford of the brain and its development in certain fields & Grantham, 2003), but that relying solely on IQ (Marshall, Fox, & BEIP, 2004; Parker, Nelson, & scores in identification poses problems as IQ scores BEIP, 2005) but that the absence of such experi- are more reliable after 6 years of age (McCall, Ap- ences affect development adversely (Lynette, Cryer, pelbaum, & Hogarty, 1973; Wilson, 1983). Bailey, & Selz, 1999). In recent studies, an identification system based on Gifted children were found to display better per- scales involving both formal and informal evalu- formance when involved in learning activities ation is used. Among these formal and informal that nurture their gifts (Borland & Wright, 2004; identification strategies are teacher/parent nomi- Johnsen & Ryser, 1994). Studies have shown that nation, intelligence/aptitude tests, creativity tests, these children have decreased interest in academic achievement tests, nonstandardized tests and scales work and tend to hide their gifts to look similar to (about self image, portfolio assessment, learning normally developing children in the school envi- styles and attitudes) (Clark, 2000; Davaslıgil, 2009; ronment (Gubbins et al., 2002; Karnes & Johnson, Friend, 2008; McWilliam, 2005; Pletan, 1995). 1991; Siegle & McCoach, 2005). Studies conducted in Turkey on gifted preschool- Considering the signs of early identification, the ers have shown that children’s developmental traits, most critical problem is to determine what method curriculum suggestions and implementations is appropriate to use with preschoolers. A compre- generally rely on various EU Projects and private hensive study analyzing the identification process school efforts, though they may not be sustainable concludes that 41% of the 64 international authori- (Baykoç-Dönmez & Kurt, 2004; Baykoç-Dönmez ties on giftedness acknowledged that the identifica- & Özekin, 2008; Baykoç-Dönmez & Bozkurt, tion of gifted children is a problematic area (Heller 2008; Metin, Özbay, & Dağlıoğlu 2008; Özbay et & Perleth, 2007; Pfeiffer, 2003; Pfeiffer & Petscher, al., 2009; Okul Öncesi Eğitimin Güçlendirilmesi 2008; Schofield & Hotulainen, 2004). Hibe Programı, 2009). Publications focusing on diagnosis have been rather limited due to the scar- Many researchers claim that the identification city of measurement tools to be used with gifted system should include more than a unidimen- preschoolers (Dağlıoğlu & Metin, 2003; Yakmacı sional approach (Burns, 1990; Johnsen, 2004; Güzel, 2004). It is also a fact that adequate special Wortham, 2005). Data should be obtained from education measures are not taken in the country to student development lists, anecdotal records and meet the educational needs of gifted preschoolers interviews with parents (Lois & Lewis, 1992; Roe- (MEB, 2010). dell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980; Silverman, 1998; In this study, an identification system for kinder- Wolfle, 1989); observations, work samples and in- garten children was devised for early diagnosis terest scales obtained from teachers (Cohen, 1989; of gifted children, and a comparison of teacher/ Wolfle); and measurements such as test scores, parent opinions and children’s performances was performance measurements or the outcome of made by using this system. With this purpose in certain tasks. Previous studies on the evaluation mind, answers to the following questions were of early childhood special education and assess- sought in the study: ment of gifted children also support the use of multiple measurement (Karnes, Shaunessy, & 1. Within the identification system, how effective Bisland, 2004; NAGC-CEC, 2006; Sandall, Hem- are teacher and family opinions in the selection of meter, Smith, & McLean, 2005). For multifaceted gifted children? decisions, formal and informal assessments need 2. In line with the scores obtained on the tests im- to be used in conjunction in diagnosis (McWil- plemented during the identification process, how liam, 2005; Pletan, 1995). consistent are teacher and family opinions with Studies conducted subsequent to Terman’s have children’s performance? 446 DAĞLIOĞLU, SUVEREN / The Role of Teacher and Family Opinions in Identifying Gifted Kindergarten Children and... Method sion of this test is widely used by the Counseling and Research Centers in Turkey for purposes of Research Model prequalification. PMA 5-7 consists of four subsec- As this study examines the consistence between tions: language, discrimination ability, concept of teacher and family opinions and children’s perfor- numbers and space (MEB, 1994). Item analysis mance, the variation among more than two vari- found the test items to be discriminative and reli- ables is investigated. Therefore, the study follows able (except for three items). On the whole, the test the relational survey model. is moderately difficult (p:58). The final stage is the Goodenough-Harris Draw-a-Person Test which is administered to measure individuals’ mental devel- Study Group opment. The Draw-a-Person Test is a general apti- Of the 600 five and six-year-old kindergarteners tude test and is culture-free (Harris, 1963). It was attending the 26 public schools in central Düzce, found to have a strong correlation with the Stan- those thought to display a potential for giftedness ford-Binet Intelligence Test (Özgüven, 1994). Con- sidering these, Draw-a-Person Test was included in were nominated by their teachers and/or families the identification system to support the findings of by using Parent and Teacher Observation Forms. PMA 5-6 Group Intelligence Test. The scores of these children were then assessed. In order to be included in the study group, children had to be nominated with the POF and/or TOF and Procedures obtain 59 or more points from these forms. There- fore, the study group was selected by using crite- Following the interviews with the 26 elementary rion sampling (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç Çakmak, Ak- schools located in the province of Düzce and the gün, & Demirel, 2012). In the second stage of the meetings to inform teachers and parents, 300 ob- identification process which involved the Primary servation forms for the teachers and 600 observa- Mental Abilities Test 5-7 (PMA 5-7) and Goode- tion forms for the parents were provided. A 15-day nough-Harris Draw-a-Person test, 113 of these 600 period was allotted for the evaluation and submis- sion of the forms. At the end of this period, teach- children were reached. ers nominated 86 children and parents nominated 500 children. Scales As a result of the evaluation of the TOFs and POFs, In the study, a two-stage identification system was those who scored 59 and above (150 children in to- used to determine those who were gifted from tal) out of the highest score of 104 were included among the preschool children. The first stage was in the study. These children took the PMA 5-7 the administration of Parent Observation (POF) and Goodenough Draw-a-Person Tests. Following and Teacher Observation Forms (TOF) for the the identification procedures, 113 children were identification of children nominated by teachers reached. Those who had an IQ of 130 and above and/or parents. These forms were developed by were identified as gifted. Leroux and McMillan (1993) and were adapted by In statistical computations, t test was used to calcu- translation into Turkish by Metin (2004). The Ob- late the difference between the scores of indepen- servation Form consists of the general features and dent groups and correlation analysis was used to characteristic behaviors of gifted children. As the analyze the intelligence tests through which chil- forms were completed by both families and teach- dren’s performance was examined. The item analy- ers, they reveal how consistent the opinions of the sis of the scales completed by families and teachers two are regarding the children. The forms include a was done by using score correlation statistics. The section on learning with 11 items involving mental level of significance was set at 0.05. activities both for families and teachers to evalu- ate, another section on creativity with 9 items, and another on leadership with 7 items. In the second Results stage of the identification process, the nominated Although the findings of the study were not statisti- children were asked to complete the Primary Men- cally meaningful, the rate of the children who were tal Abilities Test 5-7 (PMA 5-7) and Goodenough- identified as gifted at the end of the identification Harris Draw-a-Person test. The PMA 5-7 Test, procedures that were nominated only by the par- which constituted the third stage, was developed ents was higher than those who were nominated by by Thurstone and Thurstone (1981). The 5-7 ver- parents and teachers (x²=0.94, p>.05). 447 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE At the end of the study, 50 children who had an IQ though this was not statistically meaningful. It was of 130 and above out of the 113 were identified as observed in studies conducted to identify especially gifted. According to this result, 44.3% of the chil- young gifted children that parents were consider- dren who were nominated by teachers and/or par- ably successful in identifying children’s potentials, ents in tandem were found to be gifted. In other interests, and hobbies (EDWA, 1997; Farmer, 1997; words, teachers and/or families were 44.3% suc- Jacobs, 1971; Lois & Lewis 1992). cessful at identifying gifted children. In this study, 44.3% of the children nominated by No significant difference was observed between teachers and/or parents in tandem were identified the scores that the gifted children obtained from as gifted at the end of identification procedures. the mental and creativity sections of the TOF and The studies carried out by Torrance and Caropresso POF (mental u=85, p>.05; creativity u=103, p>.05), (1998) and Powell and Siegle (2000) revealed that while a significant difference was found between the use of Teacher Observation Forms to identify the scores obtained from the leadership section gifted children did not have a high level of effec- and total scores (Leadership u=56, p<.05; total tiveness as teachers had certain prejudices, but that u=74, p<.01). these forms could still be used since they would be of help in obtaining detailed information about the The differences between scores from the TOF, the children. Deans and Denton (1995) confirmed that mental and creativity subdimensions of the PMA there were not many survey methods that could 5-7 and total scores from the tests were examined. be used with children younger than six years of According to the findings, significant differences age and that very few appropriate methods with a exist between each dimension in favor of children’s sound empirical basis exist. The studies conducted performance. The greatest difference existed in on the evaluation of children’s performances have general mental performance (Total u=22, p<.01), shown that teachers’ concerns or prejudices on is- followed by creativity and mental fields (creativity sues like gender, the latent nature of talent, or the u=44, p<.01; mental u=56, p<.01). fear to misidentify might come into play (Powell Meaningful differences were also found between & Siegle, 2000; Siegle, 2001; Weber, 1999). Other the scores obtained by children identified as gifted studies have found that it is more difficult to iden- from the POF and the mental, creativity and gener- tify giftedness in preschool children than in older al mental performance fields of the PMA 5-7 (men- children (Coleman, 1985) and that progress is tal u= 64, p<.05; creativity u= 40, p<.01; total u= 30, made in the identification of gifted children when p<.01). These differences were in favor of children’s parents are informed about the issue (Gagne, 1995; performance and the greatest difference existed in Jeong, 2010). general mental performance, followed by creativity While studies conducted on the identification of and mental fields. gifted children by teachers indicate that teachers Significant differences in favor of children’s per- can make healthy selections 40-73% of the time formance were also found between the family (Dağlıoğlu, 1995; Dağlıoğlu & Metin, 2003; Deans observations of children nominated only by their & Denton, 1995), it has been found that parents are families and identified as gifted and their PMA 5-7 better observers of their children’s talents and can scores in the mental, creativity and general mental make accurate decisions 50-90% of the time (Ciha, scores (POF-PMA mental score t= -4.932 p<.05; Harris, & Rockford, 1974; Farmer, 1997; Jacobs, POF-PMA creativity score t= -4.867, p<.05; POF- 1971; Kord, 2000; Lois & Lewis, 1992; Smuthy, PMA total score t= -9.928, p<.05). 2000). When studies that compare the effectiveness No relationship was observed between the PMA of preschool children’s parents and teachers based 5-7 performances and Goodenough-Harris test on responses to questionnaire/observation forms performance of gifted children (PMA-Goode- are analyzed, teachers’ effectiveness was found to nough (POF+TOF) r= -0.20, p>.05; PMA-Goode- be lower than that of parents’ (Louis & Lewis, 1992; nough (POF) r=0.24, p>.05). McGuffog, Feiring, & Lewis, 1987; Parkinson, 1990; Roedell et al., 1980; Silverman, Chitwood, & Waters, 1986). These results present similarities Discussion with the results of this study. More children among those who were nominated When the findings are analyzed from a quantitative only by parents were identified as gifted than those standpoint, parents are more successful than teach- nominated by parents and teachers in tandem, al- ers in identifying gifted children; however, when 448 DAĞLIOĞLU, SUVEREN / The Role of Teacher and Family Opinions in Identifying Gifted Kindergarten Children and... the tests that were administered and the scores al., 2011). This has been partially attributed to sta- that were obtained are taken into consideration, tistical problems and partially to the difficulty of teachers are found to have made more accurate predicting children’s future potential owing to the evaluations of the children’s performances. More- dynamics of development (Worrell, Olszewski- over, while the parents made accurate evaluations Kubilius, & Subotnik, 2012). about the children’s creative performance, teachers The results of our study may be attributed to fac- and parents made accurate evaluations about their tors such as delayed preschool education in Turkey; mental and creative abilities. However, it can be limited or no opportunities provided by parents to concluded that teachers and parents scored lower children for activities like holding pens and draw- than children’s actual performances required in ing, tying shoelaces, using utensils, getting dressed areas of leadership and general performance, and and undressed, and to the fact that the duration of parents were more inclined than teachers to under- the PMA 5-7 test is above the attention span of the estimate children’s performances. children in this age group. Many researchers claimed that parents’ comments For gifted children to grow up to be adults that play were more reliable than teachers’ in determining instrumental roles, it is necessary to identify them those that are gifted, as parents were better ob- early on and make accurate diagnosis. The devel- servers of young children’s cognitive and social opment of a diverse range of measurement tools is abilities (Jacobs, 1971; Lois & Lewis, 1992; Farmer, necessary. It is an undeniable fact that parents and 1997; Kord, 2000; Smuthy, 2000). On the other teachers are indispensable in the early identifica- hand, some research reveals that parents have a tion of gifted children. However, both parties need tendency to underestimate their children’s abilities professional help on gifted children’s character- (Ehrlich, 1980) and that parents often make ac- istics, behaviors and communication techniques. curate observations despite the myths about par- Brochures, books, television programs, events to ents’ overrating their children’s intellect (Farmer). introduce key people and institutions, seminars, These results are in parallel with the findings if this and congregation of parents with gifted children study. In addition, many studies suggest that when may all be important steps. Offering preschool families and teachers are informed/trained about teachers practical seminars to help them actively gifted children, knowledge levels rise meaning- use child assessment tools (such as observation re- fully (Gökdere & Ayvacı, 2004; Hemphill, 2009; cords, portfolios, anecdotal records, development Johnson, Vickers, & Price, 1995; Kontaş, 2009; control lists) will help the identification of gifted Robinson, 1985). children. This study may be replicated on a more The Goodenough-Harris Draw-a-Person Test was comprehensive level at public and private kinder- included in this study for the purpose of assisting gartens affiliated with the Ministry of National Ed- the results of the PMA 5-7 Test. The lack of a re- ucation and Social Services and Child Protection lationship between the scores obtained from these Agency, nursery classes, public and private pre- two tests may be attributed to small group size and schools, and day care centers. In addition, similar the fact that the Goodenough-Harris Test is based studies harnessing a comprehensive identification on motor skills and the ability to draw pictures. model involving mental and other abilities could Hotulainen and Schofield (2003) studied 211 pre- be conducted in preschools located in regions with schoolers in Finland and implemented the German different socio-economic and cultural character- Breuer-Weuffen Difference Test along with the istics. Furthermore, developing various measure- Raven Advancing Matrices, and the Goodenough- ment tools to assess gifted preschool children’s Harris Draw-a-Person Test in order to confirm its knowledge, skills, behavior and attitudes in differ- results. They concluded that statistically meaning- ent ability areas would make a major contribution ful relationships existed between the two test re- to this field of study. sults of children identified as gifted. Also, recent studies emphasize that as children’s performance is assessed, not only general talents but also specific Referances/Kaynakça interests of early social bloomers and those who Akarsu, F. (2001). Üstün yetenekli çocuklar. Ankara: EDUSER may display outstanding performance in impor- Yayınları, Poyraz Matbaası. tant disciplines should also be considered (McBee, Arı, M. (2003). Türkiye’de erken çocukluk eğitimi ve kalitenin McCoach, Peters, & Matthews, 2012; Subotnik et önemi. M. Sevinç (Ed.), Erken çocuklukta gelişim ve eğitimde yeni yaklaşımlar (s. 31-35) içinde. İstanbul: Morpa. 449 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE Baykoç-Dönmez, N. ve Bozkurt, Ö. S. (2008, Mart). Okul önce- Dağlıoğlu H. E. ve Metin N. (2003). Anaokuluna devam eden si dönemde öğretmenleri tarafından yaşıtlarına göre üstün ve beş-altı yaş grubu çocuklar arasından üstün yetenekli olanların özel yetenekli olarak aday gösterilen çocukların gelişim özel- belirlenmesi. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Ev Ekonomisi liklerinin incelenmesi. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar II. Ulusal Kon- Yüksek Okulu Yayınları No: 10, Araştırma Serisi: 10 (ISBN: gresi Özet Kitabı (s. 58) içinde, Eskişehir. 975-491-142-8). Baykoç-Dönmez, N. ve Kurt, Z. Ş. (2004). Bebeklik ve Dağlıoğlu, H. E. (2010). Erken Çocukluk döneminde üstün okulöncesi dönemde üstün yetenekli çocukların ve ailelerinin yetenekli çocuklar. İ. H. Diken (Ed.), Erken çocukluk eğitimi (s. yönlendirilmesi. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Bildiriler Kitabı (s. 322-360) içinde. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık. 393-400) içinde. İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları. Davaslıgil, Ü. (2009). Üstün zekalı ve yetenekli çocukların Baykoç-Dönmez, N. ve Özekin, M. (2008, Mart). Avrupa eğitimi. G. Akçamete (Ed.), Özel eğitim okullarında özel gerek- Birliği Leonardo da Vinci Programı kapsamında 2005 ve sinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim (s. 545-591) içinde. Ankara: 2007 yılları kapsamında İngiltere ve İskoçya’da üstün ve özel Kök Yayıncılık. yetenekli okul öncesi ve ilköğretim dönemindeki çocukların Deans, M., & Denton, C. (1995). The gifted students in oxford tanı ve değerlendirme yöntemleri, eğitim programları ve aile shire schools. N. Jones & T. Suthgete (Eds.), Organization and danışmanlığı çalışmalarının Türkiye’de uygulanabilirliği proje- executive function in the centers of ıntegration (pp. 173-192). si. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar II. Ulusal Kongresi Özet Kitabı (s. Madrid: La Muralla. 9) içinde, Eskişehir. EDWA. (1997). Gifted and talented children policy, identifica- Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, poten- tion, Identification Policy. Retrieved May 22, 2007 from www. tially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 164–171. EDWA.org. Burge, T. (1993). Concepts, definitions, and meaning. Metaphi- Ehrlich, V. Z. (1980). Identifying giftedness in the early years: losophy, 24, 309-325. From 3 throuh 7. In Ventura Count Superintendent of Schools (Ed.), Educating the preschool/primary gifted and talented (pp. Burns, D. E. (1990). Pathways to investigative skills. Mansfield 3-22). Los Angeles CA. Center, CT: Creative Learning. Enç, M., Çağlar, D. ve Özsoy, Y. (1975). Özel eğitime giriş. An- Burns, T. G., & O’Leary, S. D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence kara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Yayınları No:49 Scale for Children–IV: Test review. Applied Neuropsychology, Kalite Matbaası. 11 (4), 233–236. Farmer, D. (1997). Just what is gifted child? Retrieved May 16, Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E. ve Demirel, F. 2006 from http://austega.com/gifted/whatis.htm. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (11. bs.). Ankara: Pege- mA Yayıncılık. Fetzer, J. H., Shatz, D., & Schlesinger, G. N. (Eds.). (1991). Defi- nitions and definability: Philosophical perspectives. Dordrecht, Castellano, J. A. (2002). Renavigating the waters: The identifi- Netherlands: Kluwer. cation and assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students for gifted and talented education. In J. A. Castellano, Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented gifted culturally diverse students: From deficit thinking to dy- education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. namic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42 (3),217–225. 94–116). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Freeman, J. (2000). Families: The essential context for gifts CCEA. (2006). A report for the Council of Curriculum, Exami- and talents. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. nations and Assessment. Retrieved September 19, 2012 from Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/inclusion_and_sen/ (2nd ed., pp. 573–585). Oxford: Pergamon Press. gifted/gifted_children_060306.pdf Freeman, J., Raffan, J., & Warwick, I. (2010). Worldwide provi- Ciha, T. E., Harris, R., & Rockford, C. H. (1974). Parents as sion to develop gifts and talents: An international survey. Berk- ıdentifies of giftedness: Ignored but accurate. The Gifted Child shire, England: CfBT Education Trust. Retrieved September Quarterly, 18, 191-199. 19, 2012 from http://www.joanfreeman.com/freepublications. php Clark, B. (2000). Building cross culture knowledge base iden- tification survey results. World Council of Gifted and Talented Friend, M. (2008). Students who are gifted and talented. Special Children. World Gifted, 18 (3), 14-15. education. Contemporary perspectives for school prefessionals (2nd ed., pp. 478-509). Boston: Pearson Educational Inc. Cohen, L. N. (1989). Understanding the interests and themes of the very young gifted child. Gifted Child Today, 12 (4), 6–9. Gagne, F. (1991). Toward a differential model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted Coleman, L. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Mass: Addison-Wesley education (pp. 85-92). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Reading. Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent a developmental Dabrowski, K. (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instic- model and its ımpact on the language of the field. Roeper Re- tive functions. Lublin: Katolickiego. Uniwerstyetu Lubelskiego. view, 18,103-111. Dağlıoğlu H. E. (1995). İlkokul 2.-5. sınıflara devam eden Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as çocuklar arasından üstün yetenekli olanların belirlenmesi. a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119-147 (doi:1 Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 0.1080/1359813042000314682). Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. 450 DAĞLIOĞLU, SUVEREN / The Role of Teacher and Family Opinions in Identifying Gifted Kindergarten Children and... Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1991). The preschool/primary of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), gifted child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14 (3), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce 267–283. VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61-80). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Kogan, E. (2001). Gifted bilingual students: A paradox? NY: Gökdere, M. ve Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2004). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin Peter Lang. üstün yetenekli çocuklar ve özellikleri ile ilgili bilgi seviyel- Kontaş, H. (2009). BİLSEM öğretmenlerinin program erinin belirlenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakül- geliştirme ihtiyaçlarına ilişkin geliştirilen programın etkililiği. tesi Dergisi, 18, 17-26. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Gubbins, E. J., Westberg, K. L., Reis, S. M., Dinnocenti, S. T., Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Tieso, C. L., Muller, L. M. et al. (2002). Implementing a profes- Kord, P. (2000). Gifted identification: Parents left out! Parent- sional development model using gifted education strategies with ing a gifted child, Suite 101. Retrieved November 20, 2000 from all students (RM02172). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/simply_gifted/52981. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Leroux, J., & McMillan, E. (1993). Smart teaching: nurturing Harris, D. B. (1963). Children’s drawings as measures of intel- talent in the classroom and beyond. Pembroke Publisher Lim- lectual maturity: Revision and extension of the Goodenough ited. Ontario: Canadian Cataloguing in Publishing Data. Draw-A-Man Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Lois, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2007). Münchner Hocbegabungst- in young children and their relationship to actual ability level. estbatterie für die Primarstufe (MHBT-P) (Munich High Ability Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 27-31. Testbattery Primary Level). Göttingen: Hogerfe. Lynette, S., Cryer, D., Bailey, D. B., & Selz, L. D. (1999). Assess- Heller, K. A., & Schofield, N. J. (2008). Identification and ing program quality, National Center for Early Development & nurturing the gifted from an International perspective. In S. Learning [NCEDL]. NCEDL Spotlights, 7. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 93-114). Springer Link Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Marland, S. (1972). The education of the gifted and talented (vol 1). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. U.S.:Commissoner of education. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Marshall, P. J., Fox, N. A., & the Bucharest Early Intervention Project [BEIP] core group. (2004). A comparison of the elec- Hemphill, A. N. (2009). How teacher participation in the iden- troencephalogram between institutionalized and community tification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority children in Omani. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16 (8), students in gifted programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1327–1338. Southern California University. McBee, M. T., McCoach, D. B., Peters, S. J., & Matthews, M. Hotulainen R. H. E., & Schofield N. (2003). Identified pre- S. (2012). The case for a schism: A commentary on Subotnik, school potential giftedness and relation to academic achive- Olszewski-Kubilius and Worrel (2011). Gifted Child Quarterly, ment and self-concept at the end of Finnish comprehensive 56 (4), 210-214. school. High Ability Studies, 14, (1)55-70. McCall, R. B., Applebaum, M. I., & Hogarty, P. S. (1973). Devel- Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identifi- opmental changes in mental performance. Monographs of the cation of gifted children as function of school level. Psychology Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (3), 1–84. in the Schools, 8, 140-142. McGuffog, C., Feiring, C., & Lewis, M. (1987). The diverse pro- Jeong, H. W. G. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions regardinggifted file of the extremely gifted child. Roeper Review, 10 (2), 82–88. and talented early childhood students (three to eight years of age). Faculty of Saint Louis University in Partial Fulfillment of McWilliam, R. A. (2005). Assessing the resource needs of Requirements of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. families in the context of early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), A developmental systems approach to early intervention: Johnsen, S. K. (2004). Making decisions about placement. In S. National and international perspectives (pp. 215–234). Balti- K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide more, MD: Paul H. Brookes. (pp. 107–131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. MEB. (1994). Temel Kabiliyetler Testi yaş 5-7. Türkiye standard- Johnsen, S. K., & Ryser, C. (1994). Identification of young gifted izasyonu ve norm çalışması. MEB Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik children from lower income families. Gifted and Talented Inter- Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara: Yazar. national, 9 (2), 62–68. MEB. (2006). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği. Ankara: Milli Johnson, A. B., Vickers, L., & Price, R. (1995). Teaching gifted Eğitim Basımevi. children: A summer institute for regular classroom teacher. Education, 105 (2), 193-200. MEB. (2010). Üstün zekalıların/yeteneklilerin eğitimi çalıştayı hazırlık dokümanı. Ankara: MEB Özel Eğitim Rehberlik ve Jung, J. Y. (2012). Giftedness as a developmental construct Danışma Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını. which leads to eminence in adults: Ideas and implications from an occupational/career decision-making perspective. Gifted Merrill, C. E., & Orlansky, M. D. (1984). Exceptional children Child Quarterly, 56 (4), 189-193. (2nd ed.). Merrill and Howell Company Ohio. Karnes, F. A., Shaunessy, E., & Bisland, A. (2004). Gifted stu- Metin, N. (2004). İlköğretim Çağındaki Üstün Yetenekli dents with disabilities: Are we finding them? Gifted Child To- Çocukların Belirlenmesi Projesi (Yayımlanmamış araştırma day, 27 (4), 16–21. sonuçları). Ankara: Özel Erken Başarı İlköğretim Okulu. 451 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE Metin, N. (2000). Attitudes of educators toward integration. Powell, T., & Siegle, D. (2000, Spring). Teacher bias in identify- Burdur Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 161-232. ing gifted and talented students. The National Research Centre on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 13-15. Metin, N., Özbay, Y., & Dağlıoğlu, E. (2008, June). A prelimi- nary report on the project of identification and education of Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The treering conception of giftedness: A de- gifted and talented children in preschool. In 2nd International velopmental model for creative productivity. conception of gifted- Conference on Special Education Özet kitabı (p. 114), Marmaris, ness. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge. Turkey. Robinson, A. (1985). Summer institute on the gifted: Meeting Morelock, M. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Under- the needs of the regular classroom teacher. Gifted Child Quar- standing Our Gifted, 4 (3)11-15. terly, 29 (1), 20-23. Munro, J. (2001). Strategic thinking: A pathway to innovation Roedell, W. C., Jackson, N. E., & Robinson, H. B. (1980). Gifted for school leaders. Incorporated Association of Registered Teach- young children. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia ers of Victoria, 1, 1-2. University. National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & Council Sager, J. C. (2000). Essays on definition. Amsterdam, Nether- for Exceptional Children [CEC]. (2006). NAGC–CEC Teacher lands: Benjamins. knowledge & skill standards for gifted and talented education. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from www.nagc.org/...standards/ Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E. final%20standards%20(2006).pdf. (2005). The division for early childhood [DEC]-Recommended Oktay, A. (2000). Yaşamın sihirli yılları: Okul öncesi dönem (2. practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in bs.). İstanbul: İstanbul: Epsilon Yayıncılık. early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Okul Öncesi Eğitimin Güçlendirilmesi Hibe Programı. (2009). Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti tarafından Sankar–DeLeeuw, N. (2002). Gifted preschoolers: Parent and ortaklaşa finanse edilen “Ben de Bir Öğrenciyim” adlı proje teacher views on identification, early admission, and program- (Referans No: CFCU/TR 0801.06-03-109). Proje Sahibi: Tokat ming. Roeper Review, 24 (3), 172–177. Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi. Sankar–DeLeeuw, N. (2004). Case studies of kindergarten Özbay, Y., Metin, N., Dağlıoğlu, H. E., Çalışandemir, F., Bencik gifted children: Profiles of promise. Roeper Review, 26 (4), Kangal, S., & Alemdar, M. (2009, June). Concerns and issues of 192–207. inclusion teachers in Turkey. In A. A. Sipitanou & N. G. Ange- loska (Eds.), 12th Inclusive Education in the Balkan Countries: Schofield, N., & Hotulainen, R. (2004). Does all cream rise? The Policy and Practice, Ohrid, Makedonya (pp. 245-251). Greece: plight of unsupported gifted children. Psychology Science, 46 Publishing House. (3), 379-386. Özgüven, İ. E. (1994). Psikolojik testler. Ankara: Yeni Doğuş Siegle, D. (2001). Overcoming bias in gifted and talented refer- Matbaası. rals. Gifted and Talented Comminicator, 32 (3), 22-25. Parker, S. W., Nelson, C. A., & the Bucharest Early Intervention Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Making a difference: Mo- Project [BEIP] core group (2005). The impact of deprivation tivating gifted students who are not achieving. Teaching Excep- on the ability to discriminate facial expressions of emotion: tional Children, 38 (1), 22–27. An event–related potential study. Child Development, 76 (1), Silverman, L. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper 54–72. Review, 20, 204-210. Parkinson, M. L. (1990). Finding and serving gifted preschool- Silverman, L. K. (1997–2004). Characteristics of giftedness scale: ers. Understanding Our Gifted, 2 (5), 1–13. A review of the literature. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from www. Peterson, S. J., & Mann, R. L. (2009). Getting ahead: Current gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/Characteristics_Scale.htm secondary and postsecondary acceleration options for high- ability students in Indiana. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, Silverman, L. K., Chitwood, D. G., & Waters, J. L. (1986). Young 630-657. gifted children: Can parents identify giftedness? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6 (1), 23–28. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied Smuthy, J. F. (2000, May). CEC–Teaching young gifted children School Psychology, 19 (1), 31–50. in the regular classroom. Retrieved February 24, from www.cec. sped.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?template=/CM/...cfm... Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions 47 (2), 161–169. of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). The Gifted rating scales. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Identifying young gifted proposed direction forward based on psychological sci- children using the gifted rating scales–preschool/ kindergarten ence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54 Form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52 (1), 19–29. (doi:10.1177/1529100611418056). Pletan, M. (1995). Parents observations about kindergartners Terman, L. M. (Ed.) (1925). Mental and physical traits of a who are advanced in mathematical reasoning. Journal for the thousand gifted children. In Genetic Studies of Ginius (vol. 1). Education of the Gifted, 19 (1), 30–44. California: Stanford University Press. 452 DAĞLIOĞLU, SUVEREN / The Role of Teacher and Family Opinions in Identifying Gifted Kindergarten Children and... Torrance, E. P., & Caropresso, E. J. (1998). PDE-Assesssment of preschool giftedness: Intelligence and creativity. Penn-Link. Bul- letin Board Pages. Doc. No: 400062. Weber, P. (1999). Mental models and the identification of young gifted students: A tale of two boys. Rooper Review, 21, 183-188. Wilson, R. S. (1983). The Louisville Twin Study: Develop- mental synchronies in behavior. Child Development, 54 (2), 298–316. Winstanley, C. (2004). Too clever by half: A fair deal for gifted children. Stoke on Trent, England: Trentham Books. Wolfle, J. (1989). The gifted preschooler: Developmentally dif- ferent, but still three or four years old. Young Children, 44 (3), 41–08. Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2012). Important issues, some rhetoric and a few straw men: A Re- sponse to comments on “Rethinking giftedness and gifted edu- cation”. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56 (4), 224-231. Wortham, S. C. (2005). Assessment in early childhood education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Yakmacı Güzel, B. (2004). Üstün yeteneklilerin belirlen- mesinde yardımcı yeni bir yaklaşım: Dabrowski’nin aşırı duyarlılık alanları. 1. Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Bildiriler Kitabı (s. 349-365) içinde. İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları. Ziegler, A., & Vialle, W. (in press). The actiotope model of gift- edness. In S. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Devel- opment of excellence in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness. London, England: Routledge. Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., & Vialle, W. (2012). Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56 (4), 194-197. 453