Qualitative Evaluation of the Science Curriculum Applied in Science and Art Centers (SACs) for Gifted Students in Turkey Within the Framework of the CIPP Approach

Abstract

This study was conducted using a qualitative approach as it aimed to evaluate the Science and Art Center Science Curriculum (SACSC), which was updated in 2020, within the framework of the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) approach by taking the opinions of science teachers working in Science and Art Centers (SACs) in Turkey. The data were collected according to the qualitative data collection method and a structured interview form was used as a data collection tool. The findings showed that science teachers working in SACs have generally negative views on SACSC based on the context dimension of the CIPP Model, while their views are generally positive based on input, process, and product dimensions. Based on the results of the research, it is recommended to conduct other comparative studies between the SACSC and similar curricula in other countries in order to reveal the relationship between the program components and the needs of children and society.

Keywords

gifted science curriculum Stufflebeam turkey

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akgül

. (2017). Gifted education program evaluation. Pegem Press.

Al-Shanawani

H. M

. (2019). Evaluation of self-learning curriculum for kindergarten using stufflebeam’s CIPP model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2019: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244018822380

Atlı

Balay

. (2016). Student perceptions towards sustainability of education of gifted students in science and art center. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 191–205. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59426/853570

Balıkçı

Tüysüz

İnel Ekici

Taşdere

. (2020). The evaluation of primary school third grade science curriculum as based on context-input-process-product (CIPP) model. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 50(229), 523–544. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2011035

Çelik-Şahin

. (2014). Investigating science and arts center students’ opinions on these organizations. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(21), 101–117. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/93190

Clark

(2013). Growing up gifted. Pearson.

Eisner

E. W.

(1991). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Teachers Colllege Press.

Epçaçan

Oral

. (2019). The perceptions of talented students about teaching practices in SAC, Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13, 139–166. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/746418

Erkol

Ugulu

. (2014). Examining biology teachers candidates’ scientific process skill levels and comparing these levels in terms of various variables. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116: 4742–4747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1019

10.

Fraenkel

J. R.

Wallen

N. E.

Hyun

H. H.

(2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc./

11.

Güleç

Karaburçak

Tatar

Akalan

. (2020). Investigation of positive career planning attitudes of gifted high school students and comparison with normal development population. The Journal of Social Science, 4(7), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.30520/tjsosci.684251

12.

Jen

Gentryi

Moon

S. M

. (2017). High-Ability Students’ perspectives on an affective curriculum in a diverse, university-based summer residential enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986217722839

13.

Johnsen

S. K.

(2008). Portfolio assessment of gifted stedents. In Van Tassel-Baska

(Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 227–257). Prufrock Press.

14.

Kayışdağ

Melekoğlu

M. A

. (2019). Evaluation of science and art Centers’ education programs based on student opinions. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 175–202. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.548321

15.

Kazu

I. Y.

Şenol

. (2012). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına İlişkin Öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM Örneği). E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 13–35. http://www.e-ijer.com/tr/download/article-file/89749

16.

Kim

. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607

17.

Lin

Ching

. (2012). Managing the Taiwan kindergarten evaluation system. International Journal of Research Studies in Management, 1(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsm.2012.v1i1.53

18.

Parke

B. N.

Buescher

T. M

. (1982). Evaluating programs for the gifted through student self-documentation. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 5(1), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198209552649

19.

Pfeiffer

I. S.

(2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. Wiley.

20.

Provus

(1971). Discrepancy evaluation for education program improvement and assessment. McCutchan.

21.

Renzulli

J. S.

Ward

V. S.

(1969). Diagnostic and evaluative scales. For differential education for the gifted. University of Connecticut.

22.

Sak

. (2013). Education programs for talented students model (EPTS) and its effectiveness on gifted students’ mathematical creativity. Educational Science, 38(169), 51–61. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/viewFile/1587/496

23.

Sak

Ayas

M. B.

Sezerel

B. B.

Opengin

Ozdemir

N. N.

Gurbuz

S. D

. (2015). Gifted and talented education in Turkey: critics and prospects. Turkish Journal of Giftedness Education, 5(2), 110–132. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1476066

24.

Schack

G. D.

Starko

A. J

. (1990). Identification of gifted students: an analysis of criteria preferred by pre-service teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300405

25.

Stufflebeam

D. L

. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Education Resources Information Center, ED062385, pp. 1–30.

26.

Stufflebeam

D. L.

Shinkfield

A. J.

(2007). Evaluation theory models, & applications. Josseyy-Bass.

27.

Turkoguz

Baran

M. S.

Gurbuz

Tuysuz

Ugulu

. (2021). Quantitative evaluation of prospective teachers’ views on inclusive education. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(10): 219–236. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i10.3944

28.

Tuysuz

Yoruk

A. M.

Turkoguz

Ugulu

. (2022). Factors affecting the fear levels of secondary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices, 12(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2021/v11/i2/2173

29.

Ugulu

. (2015). A quantitative investigation on recycling attitudes of gifted/talented students. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 29(S1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2015.1047168

30.

Ugulu

. (2019). Efficacy of recycling education integrated with ecology course prepared within the context of enrichment among gifted students. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 26(1–3): 49–58. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2019/26.1-3.1086

31.

Ugulu

. (2020). Gifted students’ attitudes towards science. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 28(1–3): 7–14. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2020/28.1-3.1088

32.

Ugulu

. (2021). Quantitative research on gifted Students’ scientific epistemological beliefs. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices, 11(2): 252–268. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2021/v11/i2/1683

33.

Ugulu

Aydin

Yorek

Dogan

. (2008). The impact of endemism concept on environmental attitudes of secondary school students. Natura Montenegrina, 7(3): 165–173. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264881923

34.

Ugulu

Erkol

. (2013). Environmental attitudes of biology teacher candidates and the assessments in terms of some variables. NWSA-Education Sciences, 8(1): 79–89. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/nwsaedu/issue/19813/211917

35.

Ugulu

Yorek

Baslar

. (2015). The effect of recycling education on high school students’ conceptual understanding about ecology: A study on matter cycle. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(16): 2207–2215. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2386

36.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research design and methods. In: Applied social research methods series, 5(3), 240. Sage Publications.

37.

Yorek

Sahin

Ugulu

. (2010). Students’ representations of the cell concept from 6 to 11 grades: persistence of the “fried-egg model”. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(1), 15–24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271499042

38.

Yorek

Ugulu

. (2015). A CFBPN artificial neural network model for educational qualitative data analyses: example of students’ attitudes based on Kellerts’ typologies. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(18): 2606–2616. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2370n

39.

Yorek

Ugulu

Aydin

. (2016). Using self-organizing neural network map combined with ward’s clustering algorithm for visualization of students’ cognitive structural models about aliveness concept. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 1–14. Article ID 2476256. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2476256