This study compared gifted learners’ and their English teachers’ perceptions of who is an effective English as a foreign language (EFL) learner. The research questions include the following: (a) What are young gifted learners’ perceptions of an effective EFL learner? (b) What are English teachers’ perceptions of an effective EFL learner? and (c) Is there a match between young gifted learners’ and their English teachers’ perceptions of an effective EFL learner? The participants were two gifted learners attending the English classes at the Science and Arts Center (BILSEM) in Adana, Turkey, and two English teachers working with these students. Data were collected through repertory grids, written accounts of the students, and retrospective interviews. Findings include implications for designing appropriate instruction for gifted EFL learners and teacher educators who work with these specific learners.
Adderholt-ElliottM. (1991). Perfectionism and the gifted adolescent. In BireleyM.GenshaftJ. (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 65–75). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2.
AkçayoğluD. I. (2011). Exploring the role of strategies-based language instruction in teaching English to young gifted learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
3.
AlvinoJ.McDonnelR. C.RichertS. (1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124–132.
4.
Al-ZoubiS. M.RahmanM. S. B. A. (2015). Talented students’ satisfaction with the performance of the gifted centers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4, 1–20.
5.
ArancibiaV.BoyanovaD.GonzálezP. (2016). Cognitive characteristics of gifted and not gifted fifth-grade Chilean students from economically vulnerable contexts. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4, 744–754.
6.
AtalayÖ. (2007). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test–K-BIT: 13-14 Yas Çocukları Üzerinde Geçerlik, Güvenirlik ve Ön Norm Çalışmaları [Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test–K-BIT: The studies of validity, reliability and pre norm on children who are 13–14 years of age] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, Turkey.
7.
BelinC. (2008). Identifying gifted and talented English language learners (grades K–12). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
8.
BermanK. M.SchultzR. A.WeberC. L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher training: Preconceived beliefs about the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Today, 35, 18–26.
9.
BlackburnA. M.CornishL.SmithS. (2016). Gifted English language learners: Global understandings and Australian perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 338–360.
10.
BoyleT. A. (2005). Improving team performance using repertory grids. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 11, 179–187.
11.
Budakİ. (2007). Matematikte Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencileri Belirlemede Bir Model [A model for identifying mathematically gifted students (IMGS)] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon, Turkey.
12.
Bulutİ. (2010). Türkiye’de Üstün Zekâlı Çocuklar Örneğinde Erken Yaşta Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğretimi [Teaching English as a foreign language to young learners in Turkey: The case of gifted children] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
13.
ChristieD. F.MenmuirJ. G. (1997). The repertory grid as a tool for reflection in the professional development of practitioners in early education. Teacher Development, 1, 205–218.
14.
ClarkB. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
CrossT. L.Speirs NeumeisterK. L.CassadyJ. C. (2007). Psychological types of academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 285–294.
16.
CurtisA. M.WellsT. M.LowryP. B.HigbeeT. (2008). An overview and tutorial of the repertory grid technique in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 23(3), 37–62.
17.
DağlioğluE. H. (2002). Anaokuluna Devam Eden Beş-Altı Yaş Grubu Çocuk Arasından Matematik Alanında Üstün Yetenekli Olanların Belirlenmesi [Determining the mathematically gifted children among those belonging to the 5–6 age group] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey.
18.
DelcourtM. A. B.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359–381.
19.
ErcanF. (2013). Fen Alanında Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Tanılanmasına Yönelik Bir Model Geliştirme Önerisi [A proposal to develop a model for identifying gifted students in science] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu, Turkey.
20.
EserY. (2011). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri’nin Eğitim Programlarının Hammond Modeliyle Değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of science and arts centres education curriculum using Hammond Model] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ, Turkey.
21.
FinchM. E. H.Speirs NeumeisterK.BurneyG.CookA. L. (2014). The relationship of cognitive and executive functioning with achievement in gifted kindergarten children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 167–182.
22.
FreemanJ. (2000). Children’s talent in fine art and music—England. Roeper Review, 22, 98–101.
23.
GagnéF. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60–74). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
GeçkilA. (2012). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerindeki (BILSEM) laboratuvar yeterliliklerinin ve uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of laboratory conditions and practices in science and art centers (BILSEM)] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey.
25.
GrossM. (2009). Highly gifted young people: Development from childhood to adulthood. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 337–351). New York, NY: Springer.
26.
GüçyeterŞ.KanliE.ÖzyaprakM.Leana-TaşcilarM. Z. (2017). Serving gifted children in developmental and threshold countries–Turkey. Cogent Education, 4(1). doi:10.1080/2331186X.2017.1332839
27.
GürpinarN. (2006). Bilişsel Değerlendirme Sistemi’nin (CAS) 8 Yaş Grubu İçin Ön Norm Çalışması ve Üstün Zekâlı ve Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Bilişsel Değerlendirilmesi [Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Pre-norm study with 8-year-old students and cognitive evaluation of gifted and talented students] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
28.
HalliwellS. (1992). Teaching English in the primary classroom. Harlow, UK: Longman.
29.
HarrisB.PluckerJ. A.RappK. E.MartínezR. S. (2009). Identifying gifted and talented English language learners: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 368–393.
30.
JonesJ. (2000). Teaching and learning modern foreign languages and able pupils. In FieldK. (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign language teaching (pp. 101–117). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
KamarulzamanM. H.IbrahimN.YunusM. M.IshakN. M. (2013). Language anxiety among gifted learners in Malaysia. English Language Teaching, 6(3), 20–29.
32.
KaplanA. (2008). Raven’ın İlerleyen Matrislar Plus Testinin 12-13 Yaş Çocukları Üzerinde Geçerlik, Güvenirlik ve Ön Norm Çalışmalarına Göre Üstün Zekâlı Olan ve Olmayan Öğrencilerin Mantıksal Düşünme Yeteneklerinin Karşılaştırılması [The validity, reliability and pre-norm study of Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) Plus Test for 5.5 6.5 ages and an examination of the early mathematics ability of gifted and normal students] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
33.
KellyG. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
34.
KeynanA.AssarafO. B. Z.GoldmanD. (2014). The repertory grid as a tool for evaluating the development of students’ ecological system thinking abilities. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 90–105.
35.
LallemandC.KoenigV. (2017). The vocabulary of learner-space interactions-understanding learning spaces experience through the repertory grid method. Interaction Design & Architecture, 32, 9–27.
36.
LeikinR. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In LeikinR.BermanA.KoichuB. (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted student (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam, NL: Sense.
37.
LeventF. (2011). Üstün Yeteneklilerin Eğitimine Yönelik Görüş ve Politikaların İncelenmesi [Examination of views and policies for the education of the gifted] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
38.
LightbownP. M.SpadaN. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
LightbownP. M.SpadaN. (2013). How languages are learned: Oxford handbooks for language teachers (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
LimS. Y.ChapmanE. (2015). Identifying affective domains that correlate and predict mathematics performance in high-performing students in Singapore. Educational Psychology, 35, 747–764.
LoveckyD. V. (2003). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger syndrome, and other learning deficits. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
43.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
44.
ManningS. (2006). Recognizing gifted students: A practical guide for teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42, 64–68.
45.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education (Vol. 2, Government Documents, Y4.L 11/2: G36). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
46.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 258–278.
47.
McCloughlinT. J.MatthewsP. S. (2017). Personal constructions of biological concepts—The Repertory Grid Approach. CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7, 93–110.
NunanD. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
51.
OcakG.Beşkardeş GünayS. (2009). Üstün ve Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Yabancı Dil (İngilizce) Öğretiminde Metafor Sisteminin Uygulanması [The application of metaphor system to the gifted and talented students’ foreign language (English) teaching]. Milli Eğitim, 38, 178–194.
52.
OyaT.ManaloE.GreenwoodJ. (2009). The influence of language contact and vocabulary knowledge on the speaking performance of Japanese students of English. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2, 11–21.
53.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London, England: Sage.
54.
PereiraN.de OliveiraL. C. (2015). Meeting the linguistic needs of high-potential English language learners: What teachers need to know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 208–215.
55.
PikeS. (2004). The use of repertory grid analysis and importance-performance analysis to identify potential determinant university attributes. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(2), 1–18.
56.
PinterA. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246–279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RichardsC.LockhartC. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
RobinsonA.DaileyD.HughesG.CotabishA. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 189–213.
61.
RobinsonG. J. (1998). Classroom practices with high achieving students: A national survey of middle school teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
62.
RosselliH. C. (1998). From Passow to Gardner: Curriculum for talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 245–252.
63.
RubinJ.ThompsonI. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
64.
SakU.AyasM. B.SezerelB. B.ÖpenginE.ÖzdemirN. N.GürbüzŞ. D. (2015). Gifted and talented education in Turkey: Critics and prospects. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 5, 110–132.
65.
SandelowskiM. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 16, 213–218.
66.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.MonsonJ.JorgensonC. (1985). Maximizing what gifted students can learn: Recent findings of learning strategy research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 181–185.
67.
SendanF. C. (1995). Patterns of development in EFL student teachers’ personal theories: A constructivist approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading, UK.
68.
ŞenelF. (2006). Bilişsel Değerlendirme Sistemi’nin (CAS) 9 Yaş Grubu İçin Ön Norm Çalışması ve Üstün Zekâlı ve Yeteneklilerin Bilişsel Değerlendirilmesi [Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) pre-norm study with 9-year-old students and cognitive evaluation of gifted and talented students] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
69.
SingerF. M.SheffieldL. J.FreimanV.BrandlM. (2016). Research on and activities for mathematically gifted students. New York, NY: Springer.
70.
Siraj-BlatchfordJ. (1995). Kelly’s repertory grid: A technique for developing evaluation in design and technology. Paper presented at IDATER 1995 Conference, Loughborough University, UK.
71.
SolasJ. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learning using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research, 62, 205–225.
TanF. B.HunterM. G. (2002). The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 26, 39–57.
74.
TirriK.TolppanenS.AkselaM.KuusistoE. (2012). A cross-cultural study of gifted students’ scientific, societal, and moral questions concerning science. Education Research International, 2012, Article 673645. Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2012/673645/
75.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.WoodS. M. (2009). The Integrated Curriculum Model. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 655–692). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
76.
WhittonD. (1997). Regular classroom practices with gifted students in grades 3 and 4 in New South Wales, Australia. Gifted Education International, 12, 34–38.
77.
WhyteG.BythewayA. (1996). Factors affecting information systems’ success. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7, 74–93.
78.
WinnerE.MartinoG. (2003). Artistic giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 335–349). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
79.
YağliŞ. (2011). Yönetici ve Öğretmen Görüşleri Çerçevesinde Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinin Yapısı ve Yeniden Yapılanması: İstanbul BILSEM Örneği [Structure and restructuring of science and art centers from the principles’ and teachers’ perspectives: The case of Istanbul BILSEM] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Yeditepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
80.
YildirimR.AkçayoğluD. I. (2013). Strategy-based English language instruction: The impact on the language proficiency of young gifted learners. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary, and Early Years Education, 43, 97–114.
81.
YildizH. (2010). Üstün Yeteneklilerin Eğitiminde Bir Model Olan Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma [A case study on the arts and science centers (BILSEM) which are a model for the education of gifted and talented children] (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey.
82.
YücelH. S. (2012). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde Sanat (Resim) Alanında Proje Tabanlı Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Göre Hazırlanan Görsel Sanatlar Eğitimi Uygulamasının Bir Değerlendirmesi (Yasemin Karakaya BILSEM Örneği) [An evaluation of visual arts education application designed through project-based learning of arts (painting) approach at science and arts centers: The case of Yasemin Karakaya BILSEM] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey.
83.
YurtbaşiM. (2016). Nasreddin Hodja tales may inspire Turkish foreign language gifted and talented students to speak better English. Online Submission, 4(2), 15–42.
84.
Zuber-SkerrittO. (1987). A repertory grid study of staff and students’ personal constructs of educational research. Higher Education, 16, 603–623.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
