Journal for the Education of Gifted

Young Scientists, 11(3), 467-485, Sept 2023

e-ISSN: 2149- 360X youngwisepub.com
jegys.org gencbilgeyayincilik.com
dergipark.org.tr/jegys © 2023

Research Article

An investigation on the mathematics teaching programs for gifted students based on

teachers' opinions
Derya Zengin 1 and Menekşe Seden Tapan Broutin 2
Bursa Halil İnalcık Science and Art Center, Bursa, Turkiye
Article Info Abstract
Received: 2 August 2023 This study reflects teachers' opinions about the mathematics teaching programs for gifted
Accepted: 29 September 2023 students. As a method, " a case study", which is qualitative research, was used to reveal the
Available online: 30 Sept 2023 existing problems related to a problem or situation in detail and to offer solutions. During
Keywords the academic year 2022-2023, a study was conducted in Türkiye with 57 mathematics
Gifted students teachers who work with gifted students in support education rooms and Science and Art
Mathematics teaching programs Centers (SAC). Data were collected using a structured interview form prepared on Google
Teachers’ opinions Forms. The content analysis method was used to interpret and make sense of the data.
Participants' opinions on the educational needs, teacher competencies, mental and physical
characteristics of gifted students, software use and mathematical proof processes were
analyzed and various results were obtained. In this study, to increase the effectiveness of the
program, it was suggested that the program should be updated by taking teachers' opinions
into consideration, differentiated and enriched activities should be prepared by integrating
technology, workshops should be equipped, and in-service training should be provided in
2149-360X/ © 2023 by JEGYS
various fields. It was also suggested that it would be beneficial to use a common program
Published by Young Wise Pub. Ltd.
accepted all over the world in the education process of these children. Recommendations
This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license also include a common pathway for students, directing them to universities in line with
their abilities and creating specific employment opportunities after graduation.

To cite this article:

Zengin, D., & Tapan Broutın, M.S. (2023). An investigation on the mathematics teaching programs for
gifted students based on teachers' opinions. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 11(3), 467-
485. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1336705

Introduction
For centuries, the definition of intelligence has been one of the most interesting and discussed topics. In general,
intelligence consists of the abilities that individuals have to adapt to the changing world through culture, environment
and experiences, which stem from their hereditary characteristics (Çevik, 2006). Binet (1916) emphasizes complex
mental functions when expressing intelligence. According to Binet, complex functions involving high-level mental skills
are required for the development of intelligence rather than simple functions. Binet is also a scientist who conducted
various studies and developed scales to measure intelligence.” The Binet-Simon test” was developed as a pen-and-paper
test to measure intelligence and was soon accepted as proof of intellectual abilities (Binet & Simon, 1916). Gardner
(2006) refers to intelligence; as the ability to shape a product, as well as the ability to overcome problems. Piaget (1971)
considers intelligence as a mental activity that provides a balance between the individual and the environment. Piaget
examines the development of basic concepts in two ways: adaptation and assimilation. While assimilation is expressed

1
Corresponding Author: Doctorant, Teacher, Bursa Halil İnalcık Science and Art Center, Bursa, Turkiye. E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-
0001-9854-9664
2
Assoc.Prof., Bursa Uludağ University, Faculty of Education, Math Education Department, Bursa, Turkiye. E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0002-
1860-852X
467
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

as the placement of new situations encountered by the individual into the existing schema, adaptation is the change or
expansion of existing schemas as a result of new situations encountered by the individual.
The term "giftedness" includes many different characteristics along with intelligence. According to Renzulli (2005),
gifted individuals have three distinct intertwined characteristics. These characteristics are superior talent, creativity, and
motivation. According to Brody and Stanley (2005), giftedness means individuals with high reasoning power and
advanced development compared to their peers in areas such as verbal logic, mathematics, and visual and mechanical
abilities. Since there are different characteristics of especially talented individuals, their educational needs also vary.
Therefore, a special program for teaching these children is needed (Levent, 2014).
Differentiating teaching programs due to the high-level skills possessed by gifted students is very beneficial for the
teaching process (Akkaş & Tortop, 2015). Differentiated instruction is a learning experience in which learning
environments are organized in line with the readiness, attitudes, and needs of individuals, different learning strategies
are used in the teaching process, students are allowed to learn by doing and experiencing, and students can make choices
to show and display what they have learned (Şaldırak, 2012). Therefore, teaching program differentiation for gifted
students should be at the forefront by using enrichment and acceleration strategies (Sak, 2012; Tomlinson & Strickland,
2005). In this teaching process, the personal and professional competencies of teachers who teach gifted children must
be at a high level. Therefore, these teachers should have intellectual interest, high sensitivity, self-renewal, adaptability,
a sense of duty and high technological equipment (Lindsay, 1980).
Although the field of mathematics and mathematics teaching is intertwined with daily life, it is universally difficult
to learn and poses various obstacles in the teaching process. Although learning mathematics is a discipline based on
logic, it is also a science that encourages mental development and creates a consistent and systematic thinking
environment (İnam & Ünsal, 2017). Interdisciplinary connections play a very important role in creating a thinking
environment for gifted students in mathematics teaching. Mathematics programs, which are prepared by taking into
account the characteristics of gifted students in the teaching process, are based on making differences in content,
process, and product according to student's readiness, interests, and learning styles. At the same time, Integrating
technology into the learning process makes it more engaging and helps gifted students develop a concrete and
experimental approach. This approach allows the learner to progress gradually toward more complex and abstract
concepts through certain steps (Flores, 2006). This statement emphasizes the importance of considering the dynamic
changes in mathematical relationships, conceptual understanding, and procedural knowledge to develop mathematical
process skills and can facilitate students' progress in this area (Trigo & Perez, 2002). It has been observed that the use
of technology-supported instruction in mathematics education can facilitate individualized learning and result in a
more effective education process (Baki, Yalçınkaya, Özpınar, & Uzun, 2009). However, it is equally as important for
gifted students to mentally construct the knowledge they learn in the process of studying mathematics. Mental
development comes into play when students begin to grasp mathematical concepts with concrete materials at an early
age. Students who build a strong foundation of understanding using these materials can easily understand abstract
concepts as they progress. At the same time, structuring in the mind is realized by the student himself/herself, but it is
also seen that external factors such as teacher guidance, equipped learning environment, variety of materials,
technological equipment, and social interaction are important in the structuring process (Ding & Li, 2014).
Piaget (1986) stated that mental development is fundamentally related to heredity and divided this process into four
parts. These parts are “the sensorimotor stage (0-2 years old), preoperational stage (2-7 years old), concrete operational
stage (7-11 years old,) and formal operational stage (11 years old through adulthood)” (Huitt & Hummel, 2003).
Accordingly, Piaget shaped the development of "spatial and geometric thinking" skills according to these stages. Studies
have shown that gifted students go through the same cognitive development stages but enter the abstract processing
stage earlier. It has been stated that geometric thinking skills develop earlier with abstract processes because these
students enter the abstract thinking process earlier (Mason, 1997). Hence, it has been observed that these students,
whose various abilities come to the forefront, can make logical inferences about proof during the abstract operations
period and make connections between concepts in line with these inferences, so they are ready for a proof-based
468
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

geometric program (Öztürk, 2017). Accordingly, gifted students need to experience different possible forms of shapes
in appropriate learning environments using a proof-based geometry program. In the transition to the complex and
abstract field of mathematics, students should be supported with different course materials such as appropriate learning
environments, concrete materials and dynamic software (Olkun & Toluk, 2007).
In Türkiye, gifted students attend the Science and Art Center (SAC) along with formal education institutions
affiliated with the Ministry of National Education. SAC is an independent educational institution that allows gifted
students to realize their abilities, reveal their special abilities and produce projects by developing their high-level skills
(Science and Art Centers Directive, 2015). In this educational institution, gifted students are educated in groups of 5-6
students with their friends and field teachers from different schools in line with their interests and abilities and according
to their learning speed . The education process in SAC progresses in five stages: starting with the adaptation process for
beginners, these studies continue with the support process, students become aware of their abilities, develop their special
abilities and end with project studies (Ministry of National Education, 2019). At the same time, gifted students receive
training in support education rooms in line with the enriched education programs of formal education institutions.
After conducting a thorough literature review, different studies on the evaluation of mathematics teaching programs
were found. Some of these studies include the opinions of mathematics teachers regarding these programs
(Aközbek,2008; Altındağ & Korkmaz, 2019; Anderson, 2013; Avcu, 2009; Berkant & İncecik, 2018; Bütün & Gültepe,
2 016; Çelen, 2011; Demir, 2021; Eroğlu, 2019; Karakoç, 2019; Keskin & Yazar, 2019; Sargın, 2016; Şen & Peker-Ünal,
2021; Uludağ, 2012). Some studies also include teachers' views on whether these programs are appropriate for gifted
students or not (Yetim-Karaca & Türk,2020). However, there are few studies on the views of mathematics teachers or
gifted students on the gifted education program (GEP) (Howley, Pendarvis & Gholson, 2005; Ilik, 2019; Jarrah &
Almarashdi, 2019). Therefore, the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gifted Education Program (GEP), which is
also used in science and art centers, has emerged. Considering these literature reviews, it is thought that a study that
includes detailed information about the mathematics teaching program, has a large sample size and takes into account
the views of mathematics teachers who teach gifted students, will be an example for future studies and will be a useful
study for the literature.
Purpose of the Research
The research aims to examine the mathematics teaching programs for gifted students based on teachers' views. In line
with this purpose, the problem statement was determined as "What are the opinions of teachers about the mathematics
teaching program for gifted students?".

Method
Research Model
A qualitative research method was used in this study. This method allows us to establish connections between different
disciplines and to study the events or phenomena encountered in the natural environment and social realities (Merriam
& Grenier, 2019; Morgan, 1996). As the study aims to examine the education programs prepared for gifted students
based on teachers' opinions, the case study design was considered to be appropriate. Case studies are used to conduct
comprehensive analyses by collecting information about the functioning of a limited system (Chmiliar, 2010).
Participants
There were 57 mathematics teachers involved in the study, all of whom taught gifted students in SaAC and support
education rooms throughout Türkiye. The study utilized the typical sampling method, which falls under criterion
sampling, to select participating teachers. When selecting participants for a study, it is common to use various criteria
for selection. According to Yıldırım and Şimşek (2016), the typical sampling method involves careful consideration of
factors such as experience working with gifted students and being a mathematics teacher. These criteria are important
to ensure that the study results are meaningful and applicable to the target population. In addition, participants were
selected voluntarily. The universities from which the participants graduated are Gazi University (7 people), Atatürk
University (5 people), Selçuk University (4 people), Cumhuriyet University (4 people), Balıkesir University (4 people),
469
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Yalova University (4 people), On Dokuz Mayıs University (4 people), Dokuz Eylül University (4 people), Anadolu
University (3 people), Ankara University (3 persons), Uludağ University (3 persons), Hacettepe University (3 persons),
Amasya University (2 persons), Fırat University (2 persons), Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University (2 persons),
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University (1 person), Erciyes University (1 person), Karadeniz Technical University (1 person).
The study found that the 57 mathematics teachers who participated in the research graduated from various universities
located in different cities across Türkiye. At the same time, coding in the form of P1, P2, P3... P57 was used to identify
the participating mathematics teachers. Demographic information about the identified participants is shown in Table
1.

Table 1. Demographic information of participants

Variables f
Working field Secondary Mathematics 37
High School Mathematics 20
Gender Female 32
Male 25
Years of Teaching Experience 0-5 years 4
6-10 years 14
11-15 years 13
16 + years 26
Yearly Working Experiences at SAC 0-3 years 24
4-6 years 15
7-9 years 11
10 + years 7
Yearly Working Experiences in the 0-3 years 23
Support Education Room or 4-6 years 15
Classroom with Gifted Students 7-9 years 10
10 + years 9
Dynamic Software Usage in the Yes 32
Teaching Process No 25
Total Participants 57

Based on the data presented in Table 1, there were 37 of the participants were secondary school mathematics teachers
and 20 participants were high school mathematics teachers among the participants. The gender distribution among the
participants is quite balanced, with almost equal numbers of men and women. Additionally, 26 teachers have 16 or more
years of experience working. The participants mostly have 0-3 years of SaAC experience, and similarly, the participants
working with gifted students in support education rooms have been working between 0-3 years at most. 32 teachers used
dynamic geometry software in the Teaching Process.
Data Collection Tools
In the research, a Google form, which was prepared as a structured interview form, was used to reveal the perspectives
of the participants about the Gifted Education Program (GEP). This form consists of a first section containing general
details about the participants and a second section containing 13 questions about the mathematics teaching program
for gifted students. While preparing this interview form, literature research was conducted on students with special
abilities, problems were identified, arrangements were made by expert opinions, and a pilot application was realized with
a SaAC mathematics teacher before the main application. Furthermore, the opinions of a faculty member who is an
expert in her field were consulted while analyzing the participants' views after the implementation.

Data Analysis
Voluntary participation was taken into consideration while collecting research data through interview forms. This form
was sent to the participants via Google form and their answers were recorded on the computer. The data was analyzed
using content analysis to identify different categories and codes based on the participants' perspectives. Because in this
analysis method, the data obtained are examined in depth and unnoticed concepts are revealed. Thus, the data obtained

470
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

with this method are conceptualized and placed in a logical framework (Şimşek & Yıldırım, 2016). The data obtained
through the forms were analyzed by dividing them into word, sentence and paragraph analysis units and various codes
were obtained. The codes were deciphered, brought together and divided into subcategories under basic categories
(themes). These categories and codes were arranged and tabulated. For example, when the teachers' views about gifted
students were analyzed, codes such as creative thinking, extreme curiosity, broad perspective, analytical thinking, social
communication difficulty, and high anxiety were obtained; these codes were organized into sub-categories "supportive
characteristics" and "compulsive characteristics"; and finally the category "different characteristics" englobing these sub-
categories was created. In addition, direct excerpts from the teachers' answers were also included to exemplify the
categorization process.
Validity and Reliability
For validity and reliability in qualitative research, it is very important to present the data obtained in the research process
in detail and to take various measures to ensure the accuracy of the information (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). In qualitative
research, using categories such as reliability instead of internal reliability, confirmability instead of external reliability,
credibility instead of internal validity, and transferability instead of external validity is more functional in terms of
detailing the process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The measures taken within the scope of validity and reliability in the
research are as follows:
Reliability; The first measure taken to ensure reliability was to collect the data through structured interview forms
voluntarily. The forms were sent to the teachers via Google form and their answers were recorded on the computer. The
data obtained through the forms were analyzed by dividing them into word, sentence, and paragraph analysis units. In
addition, direct quotations from the participants' answers were included in the findings section. Another measure taken
to increase the reliability of the research is that the data obtained as a result of the content analysis is examined by two
different experts. The data examined by the experts were divided into subcategories under the name of the main category
(theme) and the categories and codes were organized in an interrelated manner and tabulated.
Verifiability; To ensure verifiability, the researchers reported the research process as a whole clearly and concisely,
leaving no room for any questions. At the same time, expert opinion was consulted throughout the process to ensure
the consistency of the relationships between the findings obtained as a result of the research and the interpretations
made. At this stage, approximately 85% agreement was achieved between the researcher and the expert opinion. Thus,
it is thought that when an expert evaluates or supervises the research process, its clarity, accuracy, and consistency can
be accepted.
Credibility; In this study, the interview method was used to collect data. In the interviews, participants working in
different provinces of Türkiye were selected for the research group, thus ensuring a diversity of data sources. At the same
time, during the research process, the opinions of a faculty member who is an expert in the field were consulted during
the preparation of the interview questions and the analysis of the data. After finalizing the form, a pilot study was
conducted with a SaAC teacher with a Ph.D. in mathematics education about the comprehensibility of the questions in
the structured interview form. In addition, while creating various categories and codes in the process of analyzing the
data obtained in the research, the researcher consulted expert opinion. Another measure taken to increase the credibility
of the research was to check and analyze the data immediately after the interview, thus confirming whether the views
expressed were correctly understood by the researcher.
Transferability; To ensure transferability, the criterion sampling method, one of the purposeful sampling methods,
was used to determine the participants in the research group. The criteria in the study were determined as follows:
Having worked with gifted students and the participants being mathematics teachers. With these criteria, it is thought
that it will contribute to collecting the most appropriate data for the qualitative research design and providing the most
comprehensive information to the researchers. In addition, all participants of the research group were informed about
the purpose and process of the research by observing the principle of voluntariness during the research group selection
phase. Another measure to ensure transferability is to increase the chance of transferability of the research to other
environments by explaining the research processes, selection of the research group, research method, data collection
471
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

tools, data analysis methods, codes, and themes obtained from the analyzed data in detail. In addition, all participants of
the research group were informed about the purpose and process of the research by observing the principle of
voluntariness during the research group selection phase.

Results
In this section, findings related to the problem of the study and interpretations based on these findings are presented.
At the same time, the findings are organized according to various categories and codes. The findings are interpreted and
presented under six different categories. These categories are: “teachers’ opinions on different characteristics of gifted
students”, “teachers’ opinions on the educational needs of gifted students”, “teachers' opinions on supporting activities
in the classroom during the geometry teaching process”, “teachers' opinions about the use of dynamic geometry
software”, “teachers' opinions on supporting activities in the classroom during the geometry teaching process” and
“teachers' opinions about the mathematical proof process”.

Different characteristics of gifted students

The findings regarding the different characteristics of the students are presented under various codes and categories in
Table 2.

Table 2. Teachers' opinions on different characteristics of gifted students

Category Subcatego Codes Stating teachers ƒ
ry
Quick learning P1, P6, P12, P13, P25, P26, P28, P32, P38, P40, P41, 14
P49, P51, P53
Extreme curiosity P1, P2, P18, P20, P24, P50, P51, P54, P55 9
Wide perspective P4, P5, P13, P28, P32, P48, P50, P52, P53 9
Abstract thinking P22, P41, P51 3
Problem-solving ability P5, P21, P35 3

Supporting Reasoning power P1, P5, P7, P8, P17, P23, P56, P57 8
Features Motivation P2, P7, P16, P31, P44, P52 6
Attention P3, P5, P6, P9, P55 5
Different Analytical thinking P3, P20, P29, P47, P55, P56 6
Features Leadership P7, P28, P51, P54 4
Original idea P15, P35, P36, P42, P51 5
Sensitivity P8, P14, P16, P20, P47, P55 6
Fast action P7, P19, P23, P31, P33, P40, P48 7
Perfectionism P1, P17 2
Social communication P7, P11, P34, P37, P45, P49, P50 7
Challengin difficulty
g Features Supersensitive P14, P15, P28 3
High anxiety P17, P20, P46, P56 4
Distractibility P17, P25, P54 3
As seen in Table 2, the main category of "Different characteristics of gifted students" was formed by two sub-
categories: "Support characteristics" and "Compulsive characteristics". When participants' opinions were analyzed,
among the supportive characteristics; were quick learning (14 participants), extreme curiosity (9 participants), wide
perspective (9 participants), analytical thinking (6 participants), fast action (7 participants), and reasoning power (8
participants) came to the fore. Among the compelling characteristics, the prominent characteristics were social
communication difficulties (7 participants) and high anxiety (4 participants). For example, P57 from participants
expressed his opinion: “I've seen the students with the highest talent focus for a long time, they're very curious, they
question everything and they're very careful. I also saw that nature's love is high, emotional, and sensitive…”. When the

472
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

answer of Participant P57 was evaluated, it was concluded that they were extremely curious according to the section
"Gifted students focus on the subjects they are interested in for a long time, they are curious about everything and
question everything". P57 continued to express his opinion as follows "I found that they were careful and detail-
oriented." the code of analytical thinking was determined through the sentence. The participant P45 expressed that
“Students are introverted, bored easily and have difficulty in social communication.” These and similar expressions were
analyzed and the social communication difficulty code was determined.
Educational needs of gifted students
The subcategories and codes of the main category created under the name of educational needs by analyzing teacher
opinions are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Teachers' opinions about the educational needs of gifted students

Category Subcategory Codes Stating teachers ƒ
Update the education P7, P8, P20, P23, P24, P36, P52, P47, P50, P51, P55, P57 12
program
Homogeneous groups P2, P6, P8, P17, P53 5
Lack of resources, materials P4, P15, P21, P24, P25, P28, P29, P33, P34, P35, P39, 19
and equipment P41, P48, P49, P50, P51, P36, P52, P53
Educational Enriched and P3, P5, P6, P8, P11, P17, P18, P23, P24, 17
Needs in the differentiated activities P34, P35, P42, P46, P50, P51, P52, P56
General Field Teacher education P21, P37, P48 3
Increasing motivation P12, P16, P25, P28, P33, P35, P40, P55, P56, P57 10
Desire to be understood P1, P10, P30, P35, P45, P54, P56, P57 8
Desire to be successful P1, P33, P55 3
Measuing tools P13, P25, P33, P57 4
Updating programs P3, P5, P6, P16, P44 5
Educational
Homogeneous math P7, P9, P11, P23 4
Needs
groups
Equipped P1, P15, P25, P36, P49, P53 6
workshops
Use of dynamic software P8, P12, P25, P26, P49, P55 6
Educational Enriched and P9, P14, P15, P35, P38, P41, P44, P50 8
Needs in differentiated math
Mathematics activities
Mathematical proof P8, P20, P22, P28, P29, P45, P51 7
teaching
Include real-life problems P8, P12, P22, P28, P45, P51, P56 7
Increasing their interest in P3, P5, P7, P14, P17, P21, P24, 15
mathematics P27, P32, P36, P38, P48, P54,
P56, P57

As seen in Table 3, the main category of "educational needs of gifted students" was formed by two sub-categories:
"Educational Needs in General Field" and "Educational Needs in the Field of Mathematics". When the data on general
educational needs were examined, the prominent codes were: the need to update the education program (12 participants),
the need for enriched and differentiated activities (17 participants), the need to eliminate the equipment needs in the
workshops (19 participants), the need to increase students' motivation (10 participants) and the need to satisfy students'
desire to be understood (8 participants). For example, the expression of participant P8 can be given as an example of a
response: “Since gifted students learn faster, it is necessary to design different activities, these activities should be more
complex and up-to-date. In general, it is necessary to arrange activities that employ higher-order thinking skills. This is a
process that takes time and competence”. When these and similar expressions are analyzed, it is concluded that it is
necessary to prepare enriched and differentiated activities. P56, one of the participants, expressed, "Students should be
given feedback frequently because they are quickly bored. Motivation must also be increased. They have a lot of instability,

473
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

so students need to understand." From these and similar expressions like this last one, codes “need to increase motivation
and students' need for understanding” were obtained.
When teachers' opinions on the needs of mathematics education are analyzed, the prominent codes are as follows:
increasing their interest in mathematics (15 participants), designing enriched and differentiated mathematics activities
(8 participants), teaching proof (7 participants), creating well-equipped mathematics workshops (6 participants) and
using dynamic software (6 participants). Participant P27’s expression is given as an example: “They can adapt to the
subject earlier. Unfortunately, they are easily distracted. When they can't, their cravings dwindle. For this reason, it is
necessary to keep their interest in mathematics alive.” According to these and similar expressions, the code of increasing
their interest in mathematics was reached. One of the participants, P8, states; “In mathematics, it is necessary to present
complex and real-life problems to students. In addition, dynamic software environments are very important for
mathematics lessons. Likewise, the environment is critical for them to learn how to prove.” The codes for teaching proof
and the use of dynamic software were obtained from these and similar expressions.

Supportive activities in the geometry teaching process

The codes and categories obtained when the teachers' views on the supportive activities carried out in the lesson during
the geometry teaching process were analyzed are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Teachers' opinions on supporting activities in the classroom during the geometry teaching process
Category Codes Stating teachers ƒ
Basic geometry knowledge P10, P29, P44, P46 4
Real-Life problems P3, P34, P35, P51 4
Supporting Dynamic software activities P2, P8, P9, P11, P12, P13, P21, P24, P26, P27, P30, P31, P32, P33, 17
Activities in the P39, P48, P53
Classroom Application workshops P7, P14, P36, P37, P41, P43, P51, P55 8
Tangible materials P5, P8, P9, P12, P24, P25, P32, P33, P45, P49, P52, P55 12
Making proof P16, P18, P23, P34, P40, P45, P46, P48, P53, P54, P55, P56 12

As seen in Table 4, various codes were obtained when the teachers' views on the supportive activities carried out in
the lesson during the geometry teaching process were analyzed. It is seen that teachers have common views on the codes
of designing activities suitable for dynamic geometry software (17 participants), using concrete materials (12
participants) and making proof (12 participants) among these codes. About these common views, P9 from the
participants; “Because geometry is an abstract subject, it can be difficult to focus students on the process, so more
tangible materials or software can be used.” These and similar expressions mentioned the importance of tangible
materials and dynamic geometry software. P53; “The course teacher should give extra activities suitable for dynamic
software that will require research, use technology, make inferences to questions, etc.” In his statement, he stated that
activities suitable for dynamic software should be designed and students' proof skills should be developed by
questioning.
Use of Dynamic Geometry Software:
The codes generated by analyzing the data obtained in line with the teacher’s opinions on the use of dynamic geometry
software and the categories they belong to are shown in Table 5.

474
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Table 5. Teachers' opinions on the use of dynamic geometry software

Category Subcategory Codes Stating teachers ƒ
Convenient interfaces P8, P12, P15, P17, P18, P19, P21, P22, P25, P27, P28, P29, 18
P30, P32, P33, P35, P38, P54
Enriched events P4, P15, P24, P26, P31, P35, P36 7
Concretization P4, P5, P8, P12, P13, P16, P21, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, 24
P29, P30, P31, P32, P33, P36, P37, P38, P39, P40, P41, P44
Reasoning process P19, P20, P22, P24, P25, P26, P31, P44, P46 9
facilitation
The ConveniencesMaking the lesson fun P3, P6, P7, P14, P15, P18, P33, P34, 11
Provided P38, P40, P49
by the Use of Saving time P1, P10, P14, P20, P22, P25, P34 7
Dynamic Getting the answer P1, P4, P10, P12, P22, P25 6
Geometry quickly
Software Focus on the process P1, P4, P6, P20, P22, P25, P40 7
Using Dynamic Keeping motivation P14, P15, P16, P17, P19, P20, P21, P22, P23, P25, P31, 13
Geometry high P34, P55
Software Content creation P4, P14, P18, P21, P23 5
Thoughts on Ultimate skill P11, P18, P22, P23, P33 5
development
Active participation P10, P32, P33, P41 4
Ease of detection P11, P13, P15, P17, P19, P22, P25, P27, 17
P31, P33, P37, P39, P40, P41, P42, P44, P45
Scarcity of equipped P2, P5, P6, P8, P13, P18, P20, P25, P53 9
workshops
Student education P3, P4, P5, P12, P14, P15, P24, P25, P28, P31, P38 11
Challenges Using Teacher Education P7, P8, P12, P13, P14, P16, P17, P18, P20, P38, P47, P50 12
Dynamic Geometry
Difficulty in content P1, P4, P5, P7, P9, P10, P11, P14, P15, 16
Software
creation P17, P21, P23, P25, P27, P32, P46
Waste of time P1, P12, P30 3
explaining the software

The main category of "Thoughts on the use of dynamic geometry software" was analyzed by dividing it into two sub-
categories "Ease of using dynamic geometry software" and "Difficulties in using dynamic geometry software". When the
codes that stand out for the convenience provided by dynamic geometry software are examined; 18 participants stated
that the software had useful interfaces, 24 participants stated that they embodied geometry, which is an abstract lesson,
13 participants stated that they increased the motivation of the students and 17 participants stated that they facilitated
perception. For example, in P34; “specially gifted children are accustomed to combining their lessons with technology
or other courses. It helps them to be more satisfied with what they had learned and increases their motivation." When
these and similar expressions were analyzed, dynamic software was determined to increase students' motivation. From
P8's statement; “With the drag movement, the process is kept alive and the chance to see the useful conceptual
background is obtained. It is also very effective for proof processes and helps students understand what and why.” When
these and similar expressions were analyzed, codes were obtained that the software has useful functional interfaces,
facilitates perception, and embodies geometry.
Regarding the difficulties teachers experienced in using dynamic geometry software (such as Geogebra, Cabri), 9
participants talked about the scarcity of equipped workshops, 16 participants talked about difficulties in preparing
content and 13 participants talked about the necessity of student and teacher education. For example, P2; “The most
challenging part is that every student cannot provide an equipped environment to access.” and P18; "Computer and
tablet are required, it can be difficult to find." When these and similar expressions were analyzed, the code of scarcity of
equipping workshops was reached. P32; “The content preparation part about geometry education for students is very
difficult for us.” It was determined from these and similar expressions that teachers had difficulties in preparing content

475
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

When examining the difficulties that teachers encounter when using dynamic geometry software, it's important to
consider the learning curve associated with the technology. While these tools can be incredibly powerful, they can also
be complex and challenging to navigate at first. Additionally, some teachers may struggle to integrate the software into
their lesson plans and teaching styles. However, with the right training and support, many educators can successfully
incorporate dynamic geometry software into their classrooms and enhance their students' learning experiences.

Competencies for effective use of dynamic geometry technologies

According to the analysis of teachers' views, Table 6 shows the codes and categories corresponding to the competencies
required to effectively use dynamic geometry technologies.

Table 6. Teachers' views on competencies for effective use of dynamic geometry technologies
Category Subcategory Codes Stating teachers ƒ
Software usage P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P10, P11, P12, P13, P16, P17,44
P19, P20, P22, P23, P24, P25, P26, P28, P29, P30, P31, P32,
P33, P34, P35, P36, P38, P39, P40, P41, P42, P44, P45, P46,
P48, P49, P50, P51, P52, P53
Content creation P1, P5, P6, P8, P11, P17, P19, P21, P22, P25, P27, P29, P30, P32,
20
P33, P36, P37, P39, P45, P47
Teacher
Area information P1, P17, P25, P29, P30, P32, P35, P44, P55, P56 10
Competencies
Coding skill P20, P31, P34, P35, P36, P54 6
Effective use of time P28, P29, P47, P49, P55, P56 6
Pedagogical content P9, P17, P25, P29, P38 5
knowledge
Competenc Being open to innovations P2, P3, P4, P8, P10, P12, P14, P19, P21, P27, P29, P30, 16
es/Knowle P39, P41, P43, P53
dge for Learning by living P1, P2, P4, P10, P12, P20, P33, P36, P46, P49, P50, P56 12
Effective Show and make P23, P24, P25, P27, P32, P34, P37, P39, P42, P43, P45, 13
Use of P51, P53
Dynamic Teaching Presentation method P1, P8, P21, P39, P54 5
Geometry Methods Used Invention method P3, P5, P8, P9, P12, P19, P22, P28, P41, P45, P50 11
Technologi Problem-solving P17, P25, P34, P52 4
es 5E model P6, P15, P29 3
Question -answer P1, P24, P32, P50, P55 5
Equipped workshops P2, P8, P9, P11, P13, P19, P24, P29, P30, P36, P38, P39, 14
P53, P54
Software P2, P3, P4, P6, P7, P12, P33, P39, 14
Preparation information P40, P46, P47, P48, P49, P54
for the Current programs P4, P9, P11, P16, P17, P19, P21, P24, P27, P29, P31, P49, 14
Teaching P50, P55
Process Pilot application P9, P14, P15, P20, P22, P24, P28, P29, P31, P34, P37, P40, 17
P45, P49, P54, P55, P56
Enriched and differentiated P5, P7, P9, P15, P19, P21, P22, P24, P26, P29, P31, P33, 21
events P31, P39, P44, P45, P47, P49, P51, P53, P54

The main category of "Qualifications for the effective use of dynamic geometry technologies" was examined into
three sub-categories "Teacher competencies", "Teaching methods used" and "Preparation for the teaching process".
When the data obtained from the interview forms were analyzed, various codes were determined in line with the
subcategory of teacher competencies. Among these codes, 44 teachers talked about the importance of using software,
20 teachers talked about the importance of content production, 10 teachers talked about the importance of field
knowledge and 16 teachers talked about the importance of being open to innovations. For example, P1's; "The teacher
himself should know in the field at the level of being able to use the mentioned applications effectively and prepare
activities." When these and similar expressions were analyzed, the codes for the teachers' opinions about the importance
of using software, field knowledge, and content production were obtained.

476
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Based on the research, it was found that different codes were determined according to the sub-category of teaching
methods. Out of these codes, 12 teachers reported using the learning-by-doing method, 13 teachers preferred the
demonstration method, and 11 teachers utilized the discovery method. Teachers' views on these findings were examined.
For example, in P7; “When I teach with Geogebra, I use the show-and-make method. Then I allow the student to
produce their content.” When these and similar expressions were analyzed, it was determined that the teachers used the
show-and-make method. P50's; "Learning by doing and taking an active role in the creation process using software will
be a developer in terms of its ability to embody." His statement determined that they used the method of learning by
living.
In the research, teachers stated that various preparations should be made before using dynamic geometry software.
Among these preparations, 22 teachers stated that enriched and differentiated activities should be prepared before the
lesson, 17 teachers stated that a pilot application could be made with the activities prepared before the lesson, and 14
teachers stated that the workshops should be equipped physically and technically. For example, the P45; “First of all,
when technology is involved, a long preliminary preparation should be made for the subject to be explained in the lesson.
Because the use of technology is not like plain subject expression. It is necessary to prepare activities. It is necessary to be
constantly active and not to make mistakes.” When these and similar expressions were examined, teachers mentioned
the importance and contributions of enriched and differentiated activities in the teaching process. P40's; “Of course, it
will have to adapt the technology to the activities and apply the teacher himself as a preliminary preparation, so he should
practice the activity beforehand. I think the lessons are more interactive when technology is added.” When his statement
was analyzed, the teachers stated that a pilot application could be made beforehand.
Mathematical Proof Process:
Teachers' views on the mathematical proof process were analyzed, and the codes and the categories they belong to are
shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Teachers' opinions about the mathematical proof process

Category Subcategory Codes Stating teachers ƒ
The Meaning Derivative reasoning P1, P2, P8, P17, P41, P46, P50, P51, P55 9
of Logical description P1, P2, P6, P8, P11, P20, P21, P28, P32, P34, P39, P40, P41, 14
Mathematical P55
Proof Meaning of formulas P3, P5, P7, P15, P18, P22, P29, P35, P37, P38, P42, P49, P52, 14
P56
The Learning by P2, P3, P9, P35 4
Importance of doing
Mathematical Permanent learning P1, P4, P5, P11, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, P45, P52, P55, P56, P57
14
Proof Reinforcing what you've P8, P14, P18, P54 4
Mathemati learned
cal Making sense of P3, P20, P21, P22, P23, P38, P41, P49 8
Proof formulas
process To convince P4, P29, P32 3
Technology Concretization P2, P19, P21, P22, P24, P25, P44, P55 8
Integration
Artificial intelligence P9, P33, P56 3
into Mathematical
Coding P36, P38 2
Proof Process
Calculation and graphics P15, P47, P54 3
tools
Using GeoGebra P1, P3, P4, P7, P8, P10, P11, P15, P19, P21, P27, P34, P35, P44,
17
P47, P50, P54
Using Cabri P1, P2, P3, P4, P7, P17, P26, P44, P50, P54 10

As seen in Table 7, the main category of "mathematical proof process" was examined into three sub-categories
"meaning of mathematical proof", "the importance of mathematical proof" and " Technology Integration into
Mathematical Proof Process ". First of all, the teachers were asked what mathematical proof means, and various codes
were obtained by examining the answers received. The Meaning of Mathematical Proof; 14 teachers expressed logical

477
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

explanation, 9 teachers as derivational reasoning, and 14 teachers expressed the meaning of formulas. For example, P21;
“Mathematical proofs are logical explanations and justifications starting from axioms. It would be better to embody this
verification." From these and similar statements, it was determined that the participants define mathematical proof as a
logical explanation. P41; "Another argument that shows the conclusion that the assumptions derived for mathematical
proof are logically correct." When his statement was analyzed, he stated the mathematical proof as derivational reasoning.
As a result of the analysis of the data obtained under the heading of the importance of mathematical proof, it is seen that
the codes of permanent learning (14 participants) and making sense of formulas (8 participants) come to the fore. P55
one of the participants;” By questioning with proof, we also reinforce intellectual skill and reasoning. Different
mathematics and geometry software also help us in making these proofs, allowing students to embody the proofs and
see the results with their eyes.” He stated that the proofs can be made concrete with his opinion. P27; “I think that more
permanent learning will be provided as students are involved in the process of creating the rule instead of memorizing
the rule directly.” He stated that children can realize permanent learning by making proof.
Teachers resort to different ways when integrating technology into the mathematical proof process. Teachers stated
that they use dynamic software such as Geogebra (17 participants) and Cabri (10 participants), especially when doing
mathematical proofs. For example, one of the participants, P7; “It should include studies to discover why and the reasons
for a mathematical rule. Technology can be used here to validate the proof. For example, a circle's
circumference/diameter ratio gives the pi number. With the Geogebra software, we can have the difference discovered
through the calculation of the circles, and find that this constant ratio expresses the pi number.” When these and similar
statements were analyzed, it was found that they mostly used GeoGebra and Cabri programs.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study comprehensively evaluated mathematics teachers' views on various issues related to gifted students. The study
focused on various topics under the headings of students' personality traits, educational needs, teacher competencies,
geometry software and mathematical proof processes. As a result of the study, various conclusions were reached about
how teachers perceive and approach these important issues in their work with gifted students.
Regarding the different characteristics of gifted students, teachers stated that they learn quickly, can easily solve
complex problems, can focus for long periods, have higher-order thinking skills, have a strong memory, and have no
difficulty generating original ideas. At the same time, teachers concluded that gifted students have supportive personal
characteristics such as extreme curiosity, high motivation, leadership and sensitivity, as well as challenging personal
characteristics such as perfectionism, difficulty in social communication, excessive emotionality, high anxiety,
irresponsibility, boredom and distractibility. Various studies supporting these results were found when the literature
was examined. These studies indicate that gifted students have various cognitive characteristics. These characteristics
include high academic achievement (Akkanat, 2004; Davis & Rimm, 2004), use of problem-solving skills (Ataman,
2009; Doğan & Çetin, 2018; Sisk, 1987), ability to focus attention for a long time (Çağlar, 2004; Sriraman, 2004),
learning easily (Calero, Belen, & Robles, 2011; Levent, 2013), higher-order thinking skills (Bonner 2000; Kettler, 2014)
and generating original ideas (Çitil & Ataman, 2018; Janos, Fung, & Robinson, 1985; Özbay, 2013).
In addition, the findings obtained from the research are similar to the studies emphasizing the affective characteristics
of gifted students such as hypersensitivity, high motivation (Renzulli, 1978), leadership (Bain & Bell, 2004), boredom,
social communication difficulties (Bahtiyar & Şahin, 2017; Çetin & Doğan, 2018; Özbay, 2013) and perfectionism
(Clark, 2002; Çitil & Ataman, 2018; Davis & Rimm, 2004; Saranlı & Metin, 2012). Talas, Talas and Sönmez (2013)
found in their studies that, unlike our work, communication between gifted students and their friends who are like them
is good, but they have problems with other peers and prefer to be alone. Examining the characteristics of the peers with
whom gifted students communicate in studies conducted in this respect will be very useful to get a detailed idea about
the characteristics of these children.
Various needs were identified in the fields of general education and mathematics education. Regarding general
education needs, teachers stated that the identification process should be updated when selecting students for SACs and

478
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

that it is important to create homogeneous student groups in SACs as a result of identification. Teachers emphasized
that parent training should be given for parents to adapt to the SAC process. At the same time, teachers emphasized that
their colleagues should be educated when necessary to keep up with the age and be aware of innovations. In addition,
the teachers also stated that the updated education programs using enriched and differentiated activities would improve
the quality of teaching. Regarding physical equipment, the teachers expressed that the materials and technical
equipment deficiencies of the workshops should be eliminated. Teachers also stated that the emotional needs of students
such as making them feel special, increasing their motivation, wanting to be understood, controlling anxiety, and
wanting to be successful should not be ignored. These results align with the studies that contain similar results in the
literature. These studies include needs such as; updating teaching programs in line with the educational needs of gifted
children (Baykoç-Dönmez, 2009; Davaslıgil 2004; Heward & Orlansky, 1980), enriched and differentiated activities,
workshops, out-of-school practices, etc. standards should be established (Ataman, 2009; Davis & Rimm,2004; Göktepe-
Yıldız & Özdemir, 2018; Kanlı, 2011), eliminating the lack of resources, materials, and equipment (Şenol, 2011), training
teachers (Levent, 2014; Manning,2006), making students feel special and increasing motivation ( Gross, 2002; Kelly &
Jordan, 1990; Levine & Tucker, 1986; Özsoy, Özyürek & Eripek, 1998). However, in our study, only teacher and
student competencies were mentioned. According to Summak and Çelik-Şahin (2013), SaAC directors should possess
strong instructional leadership skills to effectively meet educational needs. To truly understand the needs of these
centers, it is important to conduct thorough studies that examine all aspects of SaACs and reveal general needs as a
whole.
As for the educational needs in the field of mathematics; teachers stated that it is important to update mathematics
programs, prepare enriched mathematics activities that include real-life problems, and use dynamic software to make
abstract geometry subjects concrete. In addition, teachers emphasized that teaching mathematical proof is very
important for students to establish meaningful relationships between mathematical expressions. It is also among the
important needs that mathematics workshops should be equipped with. In the literature, similar studies have been
found for the educational needs in the field of mathematics; equipping mathematics workshops (Çakır, 2009; Kazu &
Şenol, 2012; Sezginsoy, 2007; Tantay, 2010), creating enriched and differentiated mathematics activities (Even, Karsenty
ve Friedlander, 2009; Kurtdede-Fidan, 2008), and creating environments that will increase students' interest in
mathematics (Camcı-Erdoğan, 2014; Mesh, 2008; Orbeyi, 2007).
In line with the study, teachers stated that students should gain basic geometry knowledge and technical drawing
skills regarding the supporting activities carried out in the course during the geometry teaching process. In addition,
teachers mentioned the importance of developing complex activities involving real-life problems and three-dimensional
objects for students' visual-spatial abilities. Teachers stated that while designing these activities, it is necessary to benefit
from the opportunities provided by concrete materials and dynamic geometry software (GeoGebra, Cabri…). Teachers
also mentioned the importance of supporting the teaching process with proof studies. Various studies supporting these
results were found in the literature (Baydaş, 2010; Güven & Karataş, 2003).
One of the results obtained from the research is the advantages and disadvantages of dynamic geometry software.
While talking about the advantages of the software, teachers said that it has a user interface, concretizes the teaching
process, facilitates perception, supports the proof and reasoning process, saves time, makes the lesson fun and increases
students' motivation. In addition, the teachers stated that the disadvantages caused by dynamic geometry software could
disrupt the motivation of students and teachers and cause a loss of time. In parallel with these results, Genç (2010) stated
that the Geogebra program which is dynamic geometry software has an easy interface, its language is Turkish, and it is
free, creating positive thoughts in students. Cengiz (2017) also stated that with dynamic geometry software, students
could move shapes quickly and learn formulas easily, making the learning process fun.
In the research, teachers said that various preparations should be made to effectively use dynamic geometry software.
Regarding these preparations; teachers stated that the workshops should be equipped materially and technically, the
programs should be updated, the teachers and students should be trained about the software, the technology should be
integrated into the activities and if necessary, a pilot application should be made beforehand. Similarly, Kocasaraç (2003)
479
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

stated that teachers do not have sufficient computer-assisted teaching skills and should receive an education. Bozkurt,
Bindak, and Demir (2011) stated that activities should be prepared to use dynamic geometry software and teachers and
students should also receive training to use the software. According to Kazu and Şenol (2012) and Tantay (2010), the
workshops in SACs are facing numerous equipment-related deficiencies.
While expressing mathematical proof, teachers used expressions like validation of formulas, logical explanations and
derivative reasoning. At the same time, teachers stated that mathematical proof is very important because it provides
opportunities such as learning by doing, consolidating what has been learned, connecting disciplines, making sense of
formulas, and persuading. Teachers also stated that dynamic software such as GeoGebra and Cabri used in the
mathematical proof process are very useful in modelling shapes, giving dynamic structures to forms, and concretizing
the process. Various studies in the literature have supported these results. It was determined by Harel and Sowder (1998)
that dynamic visualization skills were improved by students' rotating and moving shapes by dragging, and it had positive
effects on spatial reasoning. Similarly, Güven and Karataş (2003) found that dynamic software such as GeoGebra and
Cabri changed students' perceptions of mathematical expressions and that they began to see mathematical expressions
as a set of meaningful relationships rather than something to be memorized.

Recommendations
After analyzing the findings of the study in depth, various conclusions were reached. In line with these conclusions,
various suggestions were made considering the characteristics of gifted students. Teachers stated that the teaching
programs and activities used in SACs are insufficient. In this direction, it should be ensured that the curriculum applied
in SACs is updated by considering the teachers’ opinions. At the same time, differentiated and enriched activities
prepared by integrating with technology should be presented to students. Teachers also stated that the workshops used
in SACs are insufficient. Therefore, the workshops used in SACs should be ensured that they are physically and
technically equipped. Teachers said that they should constantly update their knowledge through in-service training
programs to improve the quality of education and to be informed about the latest developments in education. Thus,
regular in-service training programs should be organized by the Ministry of National Education in various fields.
Today, private schools and universi:ties have been established in countries such as ABD, China, Russia, Sweden,
Germany, and Finland using programs such as “International Baccalaureate IB (International Baccalaureate), Study of
Mathematically Precocious Youth and Talent Search (SMPY), Study of Gifted Youth in Mathematics and Talent
Pooling Project, Europe Private the Council for the Talented (ECHA) and Dalton school “has been established. In
Türkiye, the gifted education program (GEP) is an education program that was founded in 2007 and started to be
implemented in 2014. GEP can be accepted as Türkiye 's first and only training program in this field in terms of its
content and scope. Türkiye has very little experience in gifted education. For this reason, it may be more beneficial to
implement a common program accepted all over the world in Türkiye. At the same time, a common path should be
followed for gifted students in Türkiye, they should be directed to universities in line with their abilities and special
employment opportunities should be created after graduation.

Acknowledgment
Derya Zengin, collected and analyzed data, wrote the first draft of the manuscript and organized the study design.
Menekşe Seden Tapan Broutin, conceptualized and designed the study, and provided critical revisions to the
manuscript.
Biodata of Authors
Derya Zengin is a mathematics teacher at the Halil Inalcık Science and Art Center (SaAC) in the Ministry of National
Education. She is also a Ph.D. student in the faculty of education at Uludag University. She studies in the field of Social
Sciences and Humanities. Affiliation: Bursa Halil İnalcık Science and Art Center, Türkiye. E-mail:
[email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-9854-9664,

480
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Menekşe Seden Tapan Broutin is an associate professor at Uludağ University, Faculty of Education. Her research
interests include Social Sciences and Humanities. Affiliation: Bursa Uludağ University, Türkiye. ORCID: 0000-0002-
1860-852X E-mail: [email protected]
Ethics Statements
Our study is part of a PhD thesis in preparation and ethics committee permission (Bursa Uludag University Rectorate,
Student Affairs Department is notified with the letter dated 8.4.2022 and numbered 53989) was obtained from Uludağ
University.

Conflict of Interest

I confirm that there is no personal or financial relationship or conflict of interest between the researchers and any other
person or organization involved in the research

References
Akkanat, H. (2004). Üstün veya özel yetenekliler (gifted or talented people) . M.R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu & A. E. Bilgili.(Ed.). Üstün
yetenekli çocuklar seçilmiş makaleler içinde (gifted children in selected articles) (pp. 169 – 194). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı.
Akkaş, E. & Tortop, H. S. (2015). Üstün yetenekliler eğitiminde farklılaştırma: Temel kavramlar, modellerin karşılaştırılması ve
öneriler (differentiation in gifted education: Basic concepts, comparison of models and recommendations). Journal of Gifted
Education and Creativity, 2(2), 31-44.
Aközbek, A. (2008). Lise I. sınıf matematik öğretim programının CIPP değerlendirme modeli ile öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşlerine göre
değerlendirilmesi (genel liseler, ticaret meslek liseleri, endüstri meslek liseleri) (evaluation of high school first grade mathematics
curriculum with CIPP evaluation model according to teachers' and students' opinions (general high schools, trade vocational high
schools, industrial vocational high schools)). Master Thesis,Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul.
Altındağ, A. & Korkmaz, H. (2019). Ortaokul 5. sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programının Stake’in uygunluk-olasılık modeline
göre değerlendirilmesi (evaluation of the 5th grade middle school mathematics curriculum according to Stake's suitability-
probability model). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(2) , 463-501.
Ataman, A. (2009). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş (introduction to children with special needs and special education).
Ankara: Gündüz Yayınları.
Avcu,T.(2009). Yedinci sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi
(evaluation of the seventh grade mathematics curriculum based on teacher opinions). Master Thesis,Osmangazi University,
Eskişehir.
Bahtiyar, M. & Şahin, F. (2017). Yetenekli öğrencilerin rehberlik ihtiyaçları(guidance needs of gifted students). SDÜ Uluslararası
Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 140-154 .
Bain, S. K. & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who
are gifted compared to high achievers. Monthly Journal of Gifted Children, 48(3),168-178.
Baki, A. , Yalçınkaya, H. , Özpınar, İ. & Uzun, S. (2009). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenleri ve öğretmen adaylarının öğretim
teknolojilerine bakışlarının karşılaştırılması (comparison of elementary mathematics teachers' and prospective teachers'
perspectives on instructional technologies). Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(1),65-83.
Baydaş, Ö. (2010). Öğretim elemanlarının ve öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri ışığında matematik öğretiminde GeoGebra kullanımı
(the use of GeoGebra in mathematics teaching in the light of the opinions of instructors and pre-service teachers). Master Thesis,
Atatürk University, Erzurum.
Baykoç-Dönmez, N. (2004). Üstün yetenekli çocukların eğitimlerinde bilim sanat merkezlerinin kuruluşu ve işleyişinde yapılması
gereken düzenlemeler (regulations to be made in the establishment and functioning of science and art centers in the education of
gifted children). İstanbul : Çocuk Vakfı.
Berkant, H. G. & İncecik, A. (2018). Ortaokul matematik dersi beşinci sınıf öğretim programının öğretmenlerin görüşlerine göre
değerlendirilmesi (evaluation of the fifth grade mathematics curriculum of secondary school mathematics course according to
teachers' opinions). International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 3(6),99-125.
Binet, A. & Simon, T. (1916). The Development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon scale. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Bonner, F. A. (2000). African American giftedness: Our nation's dream deferred. Journal of Black Studies, 30(5),643–653.
Bozkurt, A. ,Bindak, R. & Demir, S. (2011). Mathematics teachers’ views about the use of computers in lessons and suitability of
their workplace. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(2), 1747-1758.

481
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C. & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Early college entrance: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N.
Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), The Templeton national report on acceleration. Philadelphia: Templeton
Foundation.
Bütün, M. & Gültepe, T. (2016). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programının uygulamaya yansıtılması ile ilgili öğretmen
görüşleri (teachers' opinions on the reflection of the secondary school mathematics curriculum to practice). Eğitim ve Öğretim
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(10),80-89.
Calero, M. D., Belen, G.M. & Robles, M. A. (2011). Learning potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic
assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2),176-181.
Camcı-Erdoğan, S. (2014). The necessity of differentiation in science education for gifted and talented students. Journal for the
Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 2(2), 1-10.
Cengiz, N. (2017). Teknoloji destekli matematik öğretiminin öğrencilerin matematik başarısına ve matematik kaygısına etkisi (the
effect of technology-supported mathematics teaching on students' mathematics achievement and mathematics anxiety). Master
Thesis,Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.
Chmiliar, L. (2010). Multiple-case designs. In A. J. Mills, G. Eurepas & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp 582-
583). USA: SAGE Publications.
Clark, B. 2002. Growing up gifted: Developing children's potential at home and school ( 6th ed.).NJ: Prentice Hall.
Çakır, İ. (2009). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi
(evaluation of elementary fifth grade mathematics textbooks in line with teacher and student opinions). Master Thesis, Çukurova
University, Adana.
Çağlar, D. (2004). Üstün zekâlı çocukların özellikleri (characteristics of gifted children). M.R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu & A. E.
Bilgili.(Ed.),(p.111–125). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları.
Çelen,Y.(2011). Öğretmenlerin ilköğretim matematik öğretim programına ilişkin görüşlerinin ve matematiğe yönelik tutumlarının
incelenmesi (investigation of teachers' views on primary mathematics curriculum and their attitudes towards mathematics).
Doctoral Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.
Çetin, A. & Doğan, A. (2018). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezlerinde görev yapan matematik öğretmenlerinin karşılaştıkları sorunlar
(problems encountered by mathematics teachers working in science and art centers). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 19(4),615-641.
Çevik, K. (2006). İlköğretim ikinci kademede çoklu zekâ kuramına dayalı yönlendirme etkinliklerinin uygulanmasında karşılaşılan
sorunlar (problems encountered in the implementation of guidance activities based on the theory of multiple intelligences at the
second level of primary education). Master Thesis, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
Çitil, M. & Ataman, A. (2018). İlköğretim çağındaki üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin davranışsal özelliklerinin eğitim ortamlarına
yansıması ve ortaya çıkabilecek sorunlar (the reflection of the behavioral characteristics of gifted students in educational
environments and the problems that may arise). Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 38(1),185-231.
Davaslıgil, Ü. (2004). Üstün çocuklar (gifted children). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları.
Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Demir, T.(2021). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi (evaluation of the 9th grade
mathematics curriculum in secondary education). Master Thesis,Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
Ding, M., & Li, X. (2014). Transition from concrete to abstract representations: The distributive property in a Chinese textbook
series. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(1), 103-121.
Doğan, A. & Çetin, A. (2018). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin matematik problemi çözme tutumuna ve süreçlerine yönelik algılarının
incelenmesi (investigating gifted students' perceptions of mathematics problem solving attitudes and processes). Cumhuriyet
International Journal of Education, 7(4), 510-533.
Eroğlu, T. (2019). Güncellenen ortaöğretim matematik dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi
(evaluation of teachers' views on the updated secondary mathematics curriculum) . Master Thesis,Gazi University, Ankara.
Even, R., Karsenty, R., & Friedlander, A. (2009). Mathematical creativity and giftedness in teacher professional development. The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers
Flores, A. (2006). How do students know what they learn in middle school mathematics is true?. School Science and Mathematics,
106(3), 124-132.
Genç, G. (2010). Dinamik geometri yazılımı ile 5. sınıf çokgenler ve dörtgenler konularının kavratılması (teaching 5th grade
polygons and quadrilaterals with dynamic geometry software). Master Thesis,Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
Göktepe-Yıldız, S. & Özdemir, A. Ş. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin matematik öğrenme yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesi

482
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

(determination of secondary school students' approaches to learning mathematics). İlköğretim Online, 17(3), 1378-1401.
Gross, M. U. (2002). Exceptionally gifted children. New York: Routledge.
Güven, B. & Karataş, İ. (2003). Dinamik geometri yazılımı cabri ile geometri öğrenme: Öğrenci görüşleri (learning geometry with
the dynamic geometry software cabri: Student views). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 2(2),67-
78.
Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Student proof schemes result from exploratory studies, in A. USA: American Mathematical Society.
Heward, W. L. & Orlansky, M. D. (1980). Exceptional children. USA: Merrill Publishing Company
Howley, A., Pendarvis, E. & Gholson, M. (2005). How talented students in a rural school district experience school mathematics.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(2),123–160.
Huitt, W. & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational Psychology Interactive, 3(2),1-5.
Ilik, S. S. (2019). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitiminde görev yapan öğretmenlerin bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programları
hazırlamaya uygulamaya ve izlemeye yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi (evaluation of the opinions of teachers working in
the education of gifted students on the preparation, implementation and monitoring of individualized education programs).
Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(2),485-495.
İnam, A. & Ünsal, H. (2017). Ortaokul 5. sınıf matematik uygulamaları dersinin web destekli öğretiminin öğrenci performans ve
motivasyonuna etkisi ile öğrenci görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi (The effect of web-assisted teaching of 5th grade mathematics
applications course on student performance and motivation and evaluation of student opinions). HAYEF Journal of Education,
14 (1), 203-221.
Janos, P. M., Fung, H. C., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Self-concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel
''different''. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(2),78–82.
Jarrah, A. M. & Almarashdi, H.S. (2019). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teaching gifted and talented learners in general
education classrooms in the UAE. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 835-847.
Kağızmanlı, T.B. & Tatar, E. (2012). Matematik öğretmeni adaylarının bilgisayar destekli matematik hakkındaki görüşleri: Türevin
uygulamaları örneği (prospective mathematics teachers' views on computer-assisted mathematics: The case of applications of the
derivative). Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(3), 897-912.
Kanlı, E.(2011). Üstün zekâlı ve yeteneklilerin alan eğitiminde hızlandırma (acceleration in the field education of gifted and
talented). Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2),85-104.
Karakoç, G. (2019). 2018 Yılında yenilenen ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri (Sakarya ili
örneği) (2018 teachers' views on the renewed secondary school mathematics curriculum (Sakarya province case study) ). Master
Thesis, Sakarya University, Sakarya.
Kazu, İ.Y. & Şenol, C. (2012).Üstün Yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM örneği) (teachers'
opinions on gifted education programs). E-İnternational Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 13-35.
Kelly, K.R. & Jordan, L.K. (1991). Effects of academic achievement and gender on academic and social self-concept: A replication
study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69 (2),173-177.
Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: comparing identified gifted and general education
student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2),127-136.
Kızıltepe, Z. (2017). İçerik analizi [Content analysis]. Ankara: Ani Publication.
Kocasaraç, H. (2003). Bilgisayarların öğretim alanında kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen yeterlilikleri (Teacher competencies related to
the use of computers in teaching). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3),77-85.
Kurtdede-Fidan, N. (2008). İlköğretimde araç gereç kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (Teachers' views on the use of equipment
in primary education). Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim Dergisi, 1(1),48-61.
Levent, F. (2014). Üstün yetenekli çocukları anlamak (understanding gifted children). İstanbul: Nobel Yayıncılık
Levine, E. S. & Tucker, S. (1986). Emotional needs of gifted children: A primary, phenomenological view. The Creative Child and
Adult Quarterly, 11(3), 156-165.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Manning, S. (2006). Recognizing Gifted Students: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 64-68.
Trigo, M.S. & Perez, H.E. (2002). Dinamik yazılım kullanarak geometrik konfigürasyonların özelliklerini araştırmak ve keşfetmek
(Investigate and explore properties of geometric configurations using dynamic software). International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 33(1), 37-50.
Mason, M. M. (1997). The Van Hiele model of geometric understanding and mathematically talented students. Journal For the
Education of the Gifted, 21(1), 38-53.

483
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Merriam, S. B. & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers
Meşin, D. (2008). Yenilenen altıncı sınıf matematik öğretim programının uygulanması sürecinde öğretmenlerin karşılaştıkları
sorunlar (Problems faced by teachers during the implementation of the revised sixth grade mathematics curriculum). Master
Thesis, Sakarya University, Sakarya.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019). Özel yetenekliler için matematik öğretim programı (mathematics curriculum for gifted children).
Ankara.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (2015). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı bilim ve sanat merkezleri yönergesi (ministry of national education science
and art centers directive). Ankara
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research (C. 16). New York: Sage Publications.
Olkun, S. & Toluk, Z. (2007). Contemporary approaches in teaching mathematics in primary education. Ankara: Ekinoks Publishing.
Orbeyi, S. (2007). İlköğretim matematik dersi öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi (evaluation
of elementary mathematics curriculum based on teachers' opinions). Master Thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University,
Çanakkale.
Özbay, Y. (2013). Gifted children and their families (gifted children and their families). Ankara: T.C. Ministry of Family and Social
Policies.
Özsoy, Y. , Özyürek, M. & Eripek, S. (1998). Özel eğitime muhtaç çocuklar “özel eğitime giriş” (children in need of special education
"introduction to special education"). Ankara: Karatepe Yayınları.
Öztürk, M. (2017). Matematik öğretmeni ve öğretmen adaylarının ispat yapma süreçlerinin bilişsel açıdan incelenmesi (
investigation of mathematics teachers' and prospective teachers' proof making processes from a cognitive perspective). Master
Thesis,Atatürk University, Erzurum.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184.
Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekâlılar özellikleri tanılanmaları ve eğitimleri (characteristics of the gifted, their identification and
education). Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
Saranlı, A. G. & Metin, N. (2012). Üstün yetenekli çocuklarda gözlenen sosyal duygusal sorunlar (social emotional problems
observed in gifted children). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1),139-163.
Sargın, S. (2016). Yenilenen ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ( Teachers' views on the revised
middle school mathematics curriculum). Master Thesis,Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya.
Sezginsoy, B. (2007). Bilim ve sanat merkezi uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi (evaluation of science and art center practices ).
Master Thesis,Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
Sisk, D. (1987). Creative teaching of the gifted. New York: McGraw-HillBook Company.
Sriraman, B. (2004). Gifted ninth graders' notion of proof: Investing parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted students and
professional mathematicians. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(4),267-292.
Summak, S.M. & Şahin,Ç.Ç.(2013). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi müdürlerinin öğretimsel lider olarak öğretimsel uygulamalar hakkındaki
görüşlerinin incelenmesi (examining the views of science and art center directors on instructional practices as instructional
leaders). Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 1-14.
Şaldırak, B. (2012). Farklılaştırılmış öğretim uygulamalarının matematik başarısına etkisi(the effect of differentiated instructional
practices on mathematics achievement). Master Thesis,Ankara University, Ankara.
Şen, E.Ö. & Peker-Ünal ,D.(2021). Matematik dersi öğretim programının Eisner eğitsel eleştiri modeline göre değerlendirilmesi
(evaluation of mathematics curriculum according to Eisner educational criticism model). YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (YYU
Journal of Education Faculty), 18(2),605-632.
Talas, S. , Talas, Y. & Sönmez, A. (2013). Bilim sanat merkezlerine devam eden üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin okullarında yaşadıkları
problemler (problems experienced by gifted students attending science and art centers at their schools). Uluslararası Türk
Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2013(1) , 42-50.
Tantay, Ş. (2010). Özel veya üstün yetenekli çocuklara eğitim veren okul ve merkezlerin incelenmesi (examination of schools and centers
providing education to special or gifted children ).Master Thesis,Maltepe University, İstanbul.
Tomlinson, C. A. & Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating teaching programs,
grades 9–12. VA: ASCD.
Uludağ, İ. (2012). İlköğretim (1-5) matematik programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi (Aksaray ili örneği)
(Evaluation of primary (1-5) mathematics curriculum according to teachers' opinions (The case of Aksaray province)). Master

484
Zengin & Tapan Broutin Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 11(3) (2023) 467-485

Thesis,Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya.

Yazar, T. & Keskin, İ. (2019).Ortaöğretim matematik dersi öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi
(evaluation of secondary mathematics curriculum according to teachers' opinions). Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(1)
,1-28.
Yetim-Karaca, S. & Türk, T. (2020). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programının üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitimi açısından
öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi (evaluation of secondary school mathematics curriculum in terms of education of
gifted students according to teachers' opinions). Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(1), 241 - 279.
Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (qualitative research methods in social sciences).
Ankara:Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yıldız, H. (2010). Üstün yeteneklilerin eğitiminde bir model olan bilim ve sanat merkezleri (BİLSEM’ler) üzerine bir araştırma (a
research on science and art centers as a model in gifted education ) .Master Thesis,Gazi University, Ankara.

485
486