Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking

Mehmet BİCAKCİ (Hacettepe Üniversitesi/ Eğitim Fakültesi, Yetenekli Eğitim Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
5 0
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 47 - 61 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480 İndeks Tarihi: 13-05-2023

Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking

Öz:
This correlational study examines the relationship between identification as gifted and various indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) among high school students living in Turkey. The relatively large and representative sample consists of 688 high school students, both identified (n = 343) and unidentified (n = 345) as gifted, enrolled in nationwide after-school gifted education programs. The “identified” group comprises adolescents who scored an IQ index of 130 or higher, while the unidentified group comprises high school students attending formal educational institutions without meeting the IQ-based identification criterion. Chi-square tests of independence were utilized to investigate the relationship between identification status and SES indicators such as perceived household income, parental education level, current area of residence, and area of residence where most of life is spent. The results indicate that identified participants are more likely to come from families with higher perceived income and parental education levels, live in urban areas, and spend most of their lives in urban areas compared to the unidentified group. Overall, the findings suggest that SES factors might play a significant role in the identification of giftedness students in Turkey. The findings are discussed around the problem of underrepresentation in traditional identification methods, with a focus on educational equality within the framework of systems theory and critical systems theory.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Atun, R., Aydın, S., Chakraborty, S., Sümer, S., Aran, M., Gurol-Urganci, I., Nazlıoğlu, S., Ogülcü, S., Aydoğan, U., Ayar, B., Dilmen, U., & Akdağ, R. (2013). Universal health coverage in Turkey: Enhancement of equity. Lancet, 382. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(13)61051-X
  • APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). Socioeconomic status (SES). In APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/socioeconomic-status
  • Ayas, M. B. (2018). Üstün yeteneklileri tanılamaya giriş [Introduction to gifted identification]. In U. Sak (Ed.) Üstün yeteneklilerin tanılanması [Identification of gifted and talented], (pp. 1-14). Ankara: Vize.
  • Aydarova, E. (2019). Flipping the paradigm: Studying up and research for social justice. In K. K. Strunk & L. A. Locke. Research methods for social justice and equity in education (pp. 33–44). Palgrave Macmillan: Switzerland.
  • Baker, E. H. (2014). Socioeconomic status, definition. In W.C. Cockerham, R. Dingwall, & S. Quah (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of health, illness, behavior, and society (pp. 2210–2214). doi: 10.1002/9781118410868.wbehibs395
  • Bicakci, M. (2020). Özel yetenekli olarak tanılanmış ve tanılanmamış ergenlerin kişilik özellikleri ve kültürel yönelimlerinin karşılaştırılması [A comparison of personality traits and cultural orientations in adolescents identified versus unidentified as gifted], (Unpublished master's thesis), Hacettepe University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  • Bicakci, M., & Baloğlu, M. (2021). Gifted underachievement: Characteristics, causes and intervention. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 771-798. doi: 10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.607979
  • Balestrini, D. P., & Stoeger, H. (2018). Substantiating a special cultural emphasis on learning and education in East Asia. High Ability Studies, 29(1), 79-106. doi:10.1080/13598139.2017.1423281
  • Ballam, N. (2009). Gifted and growing up in a low income family: Mindsets, resilience and interventions. Paper presented at the National Conference on Gifted Education, Rotorua, New Zeland.
  • Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
  • Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1- 19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2014). Does gifted education work? For which students? National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20453
  • Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), 931–961. doi: 10.1177/0011392116638396
  • Ceci, S. J. (1990). On intelligence ... more or less: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development. New Jersey, US: Prentice- Hall.
  • Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.
  • Crawford, B. F., Snyder, K. E., & Adelson, J. L. (2019). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability Studies, 1–32. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231
  • Crabtree, L. M., Richardson, S. C., & Lewis, C. W. (2019). The gifted gap, STEM education, and economic immobility. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2), 203- 231. doi: 10.1177/1932202X19829749
  • Coleman, M. R. (2003). The identification of students who are gifted, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (ED480431).
  • Cortina, K. S., Arel, S., & Smith-Darden, J. P. (2017). School belonging in different cultures: The effects of individualism and power distance. Frontiers in Education, 2(56). doi: 10.3389/feduc.2017.00056
  • Dai, D. Y. (2020). Rethinking human potential from a talent development perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(1), 19–37. doi: 10.1177/0162353219897850
  • de Wet, C. F., & Gubbins, E. J. (2011). Teachers' beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33(2), 97-108. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554157
  • Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Durant, W. (1933). The story of philosophy (New revised ed.). Garden City Publishing Co. Inc.: New York.
  • Fajer, M., de Almeida, I. M., & Fischer, F. M. (2011). Contributive factors to aviation accidents. Rev Saúde Pública, 45(2), 1-4.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., William Asher, J., & Hoover, S. M. (1984). Problems in the identification of giftedness, talent, or ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 149–151. doi: 10.1177/001698628402800402
  • Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4–14. doi: 10.1177/002246699803200102
  • Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Fu, T. (2017). Wandering in the shadow of egalitarianism and equity: A social and cultural explanation to the underdeveloped gifted education in China. Global Education Review, 4(1), 34–44.
  • Goodman, E., Huang, B., Schafer-Kalkhoff, T., & Adler, N. E. (2007). Perceived socioeconomic status: a new type of identity that influences adolescents' self-rated health. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(5), 479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.05.020
  • Gökhan, A. (2008). The determinants of internal migration in Turkey [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sabancı University, İstanbul, Turkey.
  • Grissom, J. A., Redding, C., & Bleiberg, J. F. (2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review, 89(3), 337-369. doi: 10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337
  • Güçyeter, Ş., Kanlı, E., Özyaprak, M., & Leana-Taşcılar, M. Z. (2017). Serving gifted children in developmental and threshold countries — Turkey. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1332839. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1332839
  • Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, M. S., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., Brodersen, A. V., & Mun, R. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6-24. doi: 10.1177/0016986217738053
  • Hodges, J. (2018). Assessing the influence of No Child Left Behind on gifted education funding in Texas: A Descriptive Study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4), 321–342. doi: 10.1177/1932202X18779343
  • Hodges, J., Tay, J., Desmet, O., Ozturk, E., & Pereira, N. (2018). The effect of the 2008 recession on gifted education funding across the State of Texas. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–11. doi: 10.1177/2332858418786224
  • Hodges, J., & Gentry, M. (2021). Underrepresentation in gifted education in the context of rurality and socioeconomic status.Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2), 135–159. doi: 10.1177/1932202X20969143
  • Hoffmann, J. P. (2020). Academic underachievement and delinquent behavior. Youth & Society, 52(5), 728-755. doi: 10.1177/0044118x18767035
  • Johnsen, S. K. (2009). Identification, Barbara Kerr (Ed.). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent içinde (pp. 439-443). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  • Kingston, S. (2021). Parent involvement in education? A Foucauldian discourse analysis of school newsletters. Power and Education, 13(2), 58–72. doi: 10.1177/17577438211011623
  • Kurnaz, A. (2014). Yirminci yılında Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinin raporlar ve yönetici görüşlerine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Science and Art Centers in their twentieth year based on reports and managers' opinions]. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Gifted Education Research], 2(1), 1-22.
  • Mammadov, S. (2019). Being gifted in Turkey: Educational and social experiences of high-ability students. Gifted Education International, 35(3), 216–236. doi: 10.1177/0261429419839397
  • Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52(1), 13–30. doi: 10.2307/1129211
  • Mead, G. H. (1934/1972). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press. MoNE. (2013). Strategy and implementation plan for gifted individuals (2013-2017). Ministy of National Education: Turkey.
  • MoNE. (2019). Science and art centers student identification and placement guide 2018-2019. General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services, Ministy of National Education, Turkey.
  • MoNE. (2022). Bilsem sayisi, 279'a yükseldi [The number of Science and Art Centers increased to 279]. Retrieved from: https://www.meb.gov.tr/bilsem-sayisi-279a-yukseldi/haber/25315/tr
  • McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111.
  • Morgan, H. (2019). The lack of minority students in gifted education: Hiring more exemplary teachers of color can alleviate the problem. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92(4-5), 156–162. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2019.1645635
  • Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E., (2003). Education, social status, and health (1st ed.). Routledge: New York. doi: 10.4324/9781351328081
  • OECD. (2016). Türkiye’de bölgesel rekabet edilebilirliğin geliştirilmesi [Improving regional competitiveness in Turkey]. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
  • Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high ability students. National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537321.
  • Öztürk, A. (2009). Homojen ve fonksiyonel bölgelerin tespiti ve Türkiye için istatistiki bölge birimleri önerisi [Determination of homogeneous and functional regions and statistical regional units proposal for Turkey]. Master’s thesis in Planning, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı Yayınları.
  • Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. J. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), In The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511763205.005
  • Plucker, J. A., & Peters, S. J. (2018). Closing poverty-based excellence gaps: Conceptual, measurement, and educational issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 56–67. doi: 10.1177/0016986217738566
  • Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 159-171. doi: 10.1177/0016986216643165
  • Peters, S. J. & McBee, M. T. (2019). The application of differential normative criteria to the gifted education screening phase: Implications for demographic representation. Paper presented at American Education Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
  • Rasheed, M. (2020). Context and content in rural gifted education: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(1),61–84. doi: 10.1177/1932202X19879174
  • Renbarger, R., & Long, K. (2019). Interventions for postsecondary success for low-income and high-potential students: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2), 178–202. doi: 10.1177/1932202X19828744
  • Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Introduction to identification of students for gifted and talented programs. J. S. Renzulli, & S. M. Reis (Eds). In Identification of students for gifted and talented programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. doi: 10.1177/0016986207306324
  • Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1999). Refining the association between education and health: The effects of quantity, credential, and selectivity. Demography, 36(4), 445–460. doi: 10.2307/2648083
  • Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2010). Why education is the key to socioeconomic differentials in health. In C. E. Bird, P. Conrad, A. M. Fremont, & S. Timmermans (Eds.), Handbook of medical sociology, (6th ed., pp. 33–51). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv16h2n9s.6
  • Sak, U., Ayas, B., Bal-Sezerel, B., Öpengin, E., Özdemir, N., & Demirel-Gürbüz, Ş. (2016). A critical assessment of the education for gifted and talented students in Turkey. D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), In Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects içinde (pp. 167-190). Charlotte: Information Age Pub. Inc.
  • Sak, U., Ayas, B., Bal-Sezerel, B., Özdemir, N. N., Öpengin, E., & Demirel, S. (2019). Development of gifted education in Turkey. B. Wallace, D. A. Sisk, & J. Senior (Eds.), In Handbook of gifted and talented education içinde (pp. 492-506). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  • Tarhan, S., & Kılıç, Ş. (2014). Üstün yetenekli bireylerin tanılanması ve Türkiye’deki eğitim modelleri [Identification of gifted individuals and educational models in Turkey]. Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Gifted Education Research], 2(1), 27-43
  • Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2023). Individual, collective, and contextual aspects in the identification of giftedness [Online first]. Gifted Education International, 0(0). doi: 10.1177/02614294231156986
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed). Boston: Pearson.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110–123. doi: 10.1177/001698620204600204
  • Watson, S., & Watson, W. (2011). Critical, emancipatory, and pluralistic research for education: A review of critical systems theory. Journal of Thought, 46(3-4), 63–77. doi: 10.2307/jthought.46.3-4.63
  • Welsch, D. M., & Zimmer, D. M. (2018). Do high school gifted programs lead to later-in-life success? Journal of Labor Research, 39(2), 201-218. doi: 10.1007/s12122-017-9252-9
  • Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 551-576. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846
  • Wyner, J., Bridgeland, J., & DiIulio, J. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Virginia, US: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
  • Yoon, S., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. doi: 10.1177/0016986208330564
  • Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), In Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610455.024
  • Ziegler, A. & Bicakci, M. (2023). Labeling the gifted: An overview of four core challenges. Keynote speech at the congress Labeling the Gifted: Nomen est Omen, Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně, Czechia.
  • Ziegler, A., & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3-30. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
  • Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2017). Systemic gifted education: A theoretical introduction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 183–193. doi: 10.1177/0016986217705713
  • Ziegler, A., Chandler, K. L., Vialle, W., & Stoeger, H. (2017). Exogenous and endogenous learning resources in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness and its significance for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(4), 310–333. doi: 10.1177/0162353217734376
  • Ziegler, A., Balestrini, D. P., & Stoeger, H. (2018). An international view on gifted education: Incorporating the macro-systemic perspective. S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.) In Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research and best practices (2nd ed.), (pp. 15-28). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_2
APA Bicakci M (2023). Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. , 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
Chicago Bicakci Mehmet Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. (2023): 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
MLA Bicakci Mehmet Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. , 2023, ss.47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
AMA Bicakci M Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. . 2023; 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
Vancouver Bicakci M Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. . 2023; 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
IEEE Bicakci M "Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking." , ss.47 - 61, 2023. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
ISNAD Bicakci, Mehmet. "Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking". (2023), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
APA Bicakci M (2023). Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
Chicago Bicakci Mehmet Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38, no.2 (2023): 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
MLA Bicakci Mehmet Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.38, no.2, 2023, ss.47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
AMA Bicakci M Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023; 38(2): 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
Vancouver Bicakci M Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023; 38(2): 47 - 61. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
IEEE Bicakci M "Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking." Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38, ss.47 - 61, 2023. 10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
ISNAD Bicakci, Mehmet. "Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Identification of Gifted in Turkey through Critical Systems Thinking". Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38/2 (2023), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2023.480
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 7:1

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları