Araştırma Makalesi | Açık Erişim
Türkiye Üstün Zekalı ve Dahi Çocuklar Eğitim Vakfı Dergisi 2024, Clt. 1(1) 69-86
Instructional Texts for the Gifted: A Semiotic Approach to Teachers' Awareness and Strategies
ss. 69 - 86 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/tuzdev.2024.1093.5
Yayın Tarihi: Aralık 26, 2024 | Görüntüleme Sayısı: 32/27 | İndirilme Sayısı: 63/40
Özet
Teaching of gifted is generally based on knowledge transfer and transformation of knowledge into creative learning products. Instructional texts as mediating tools of knowledge in the gifted classroom play a key role in the initiation of knowledge transfer. This knowledge transfer starts with the experience of content knowledge which is accessible through various mediating tools. Further, the semiotic property in the design of these texts affects both meaning-making and creative learning products. In this respect, this study explored the awareness and strategies for designing instructional text through social semiotics and multimodality lenses. The case study method was adopted, and six science teachers of gifted students joined the study. Semi-structured interviews were implemented to figure out awareness, and multimodal semiotic analysis was used to analyse the instructional text that they designed and used in their actual teaching practices. Data is qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Results indicate that the awareness towards semiotic properties is limited, and the semiotic properties of instructional texts need to be improved.
Anaktar kelimeler: Gifted education, instructional texts, knowledge transfer, creativity, multimodality
APA 7th edition
Ayik, Z., & Costu, B. (2024). Instructional Texts for the Gifted: A Semiotic Approach to Teachers’ Awareness and Strategies . Türkiye Üstün Zekalı ve Dahi Çocuklar Eğitim Vakfı Dergisi, 1(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.29329/tuzdev.2024.1093.5
Harvard
Ayik, Z. and Costu, B. (2024). Instructional Texts for the Gifted: A Semiotic Approach to Teachers’ Awareness and Strategies . Türkiye Üstün Zekalı ve Dahi Çocuklar Eğitim Vakfı Dergisi, 1(1), pp. 69-86.
Chicago 16th edition
Ayik, Zekai and Bayram Costu (2024). "Instructional Texts for the Gifted: A Semiotic Approach to Teachers’ Awareness and Strategies ". Türkiye Üstün Zekalı ve Dahi Çocuklar Eğitim Vakfı Dergisi 1 (1):69-86. https://doi.org/10.29329/tuzdev.2024.1093.5
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20265
Aljughaiman, A. M., & Ayoub, A. E. A. (2012). The effect of an enrichment program on developing analytical, creative, and practical abilities of elementary gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 153–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212440616
Ayık, Z (2021). Development of the multimodal text design training model for science teachers of gifted students: An educatıonal design research (694542) [Doctoral dissertation, Yıldız Technical University]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi
Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2010). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook with associates on-line course (2nd ed., Vol. №3). Equinox.
Besançon, M. (2013). Creativity, giftedness and education. Gifted and Talented International, 28(1–2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678410
Bock, Z. (2016). Multimodality, creativity and children’s meaning-making: Drawings, writings, imaginings. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 49, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5842/49-0-669
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE Publications.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044160
Danielsson, K. (2016). Modes and meaning in the classroom – The role of different semiotic resources to convey meaning in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 35, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.005
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Pearson.
DiSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2
Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). The significance of visual representations in the teaching of science. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 3–28). Springer.
Eilam, B., Poyas, Y., & Hashimshoni, R. (2014). Representing visually: What teachers know and what they prefer. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 53–84). Springer.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Glǎveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Arnold.
Heilbronner, N. N., & Renzulli, J. R. (2016). Schoolwide enrichment model in science: A hands-on approach for engaging young scientists. Prufrock Press Inc.
Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent.Pergamon Press.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cornell University Press.
Jaipal, K. (2010). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20359
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. In Introducing multimodality.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315638027
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Multimodal literacy. Peter Lang.
Kulgemeyer, C. (2018). Towards a framework for effective instructional explanations in science teaching. Studies in Science Education, 54(2), 109–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1598054
Lemke, J. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Pub. Corp.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–114). Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246905867
Lemke, J. L. (2000). Opening up closure: Semiotics across scales. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901(1), 100–111.
Lim, V. F. (2011). A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis approach to pedagogic discourse. National University of Singapore.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2007). Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF–MDA) approach to mathematics, grammar and literacy. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 77–102). Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208096210
Patron, E., Wikman, S., Edfors, I., Johansson-Cederblad, B., & Linder, C. (2017). Teachers’ reasoning: Classroom visual representational practices in the context of introductory chemical bonding. Science Education, 101(6), 887–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21298
Reis, S. M., Renzulli, S. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
Reis-Jorge, J., Ferreira, M., Olcina-Sempere, G., & Marques, B. (2021). Perceptions of giftedness and classroom practice with gifted children – an exploratory study of primary school teachers. Qualitative Research in Education, 10(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.8097
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2007). Enriching school science for the gifted learner. March.
Tang, K. S. (2013). Instantiation of multimodal semiotic systems in science classroom discourse. Language Sciences, 37, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.08.003
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648
