REPUBLIC OF TURKEY ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY ...son Erdem AKÇAYOĞLU for trying to protect each word file he saw in the screen by closing it and saying “This is mummy’s important file!”

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF STRATEGIES-BASED LANGUAGE

INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO YOUNG GIFTED LEARNERS

Duygu İŞPINAR AKÇAYOĞLU

A PhD DISSERTATION

ADANA, 2011

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING




Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

A PhD DISSERTATION

ADANA, 2011

To the Directorship of the Institute of Social Sciences, Çukurova University

We certify that this dissertation is satisfactory for the award of degree of Doctor

of Philosophy in the subject matter of English Language Teaching

Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

Member of Examining Committee: Prof. Dr. Hatice SOFU

Member of Examining Committee: Doç. Dr. Ahmet Doğanay

Member of Examining Committee: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Şehnaz Şahinkarakaş

Member of Examining Committee: Doç. Dr. Ergün Serindağ

I certify that this dissertation confirms to the formal standards of the Institute of Social

Sciences

…/……/2011

Prof. Dr. Azmi YALÇIN

Director of the Institute

PS. The uncited usage of the reports, charts, figures, and tables in this dissertation,

whether original or quotes for mother sources, is subject to the Law of Works of Art and

Thought No: 5846

Not: Bu tezde kullanılan, özgün ve/veya başka kaynaktan yapılan rapor, çizelge, şekil

ve tabloların kaynak gösterilmeden kullanımı 5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri

Kanunu’ndaki hükümlere tabidir.

iii

ÖZET

STRATEJİ TEMELLİ DİL ÖĞRETİMİNİN ÜSTÜN YETENEKLİ

ÖGRENCİLERE İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEDEKİ ROLÜNÜN BELİRLENMESİ

Doktora Tezi, İngiliz Dili ve Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı

Danışman: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

Haziran 2011, 206 sayfa

Üstün yetenekli çocukların eğitimi, diğer ülkelerle kıyaslandığında Türkiye’de

yeni bir alandır. Buna karşın, bu çocukları diğerlerinden farklı kılan özelliklerin neler

olduğu ve kendilerine sunulan eğitim programlarından nasıl faydalandıkları konusunda

büyük bir merak oluşmuş bulunmaktadır. Üstün yetenekli çocuklar her ne kadar kendi

başlarına öğrenmeye bırakılsalar da (Enç, 2005), bu çocuklara farklı özelliklerinden

dolayı farklı bir eğitim verilmesi gerektiği kaçınılmaz bir gerçektir. Hızlı ve kendi

kendilerine öğrenebilmeleri ve iyi bir hafızaya sahip olmaları nedeniyle (CCEA, 2006),

üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin, öğrenmeyi daha sistemli, düzenli ve etkili hale getiren

strateji eğitiminden faydalandırılması çok önemli bir fırsattır. Bu çalışmanın öncelikli

amacı, strateji temelli dil öğretiminin üstün yetenekli öğrencilere İngilizce öğretmedeki

rolünü belirlemektir. Çalışma, yaşları 11-13 arasında bulunan 10 öğrenciyle yapılmış bir

eylem araştırmasıdır. Çalışma kapsamında öğrencilerin İngilizce’ye bakış açıları,

kullandıkları dil öğrenme stratejileri ve İngilizce seviyeleri belirlenmiştir. Bunun

ardından, öğrencilere yedi ay boyunca strateji temelli dil öğretimi uygulanmıştır.

Strateji eğitiminin etkisini belirlemek için, süreç boyunca çeşitli veri toplama araçları

kullanılmıştır. Sormacalar, sesli düşünme uygulamaları, grup tartışmaları, görüşmeler,

araştırmacının alan notları ve öğrencilerden düzenli olarak alınan yazılı dönütlerden

elde edilen bulgular, sadece çalışmaya katılan üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin dil öğrenme

süreçlerini ortaya çıkarmakla kalmayıp aynı zamanda da strateji temelli dil öğretiminin

etkili ve faydalı olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmanın, Türkiye’de üstün yetenekli

çocuklara İngilizce öğretimi konusunda ışık tutacağı ve bu çocuklar için hazırlanması

çok önemli olan özel İngilizce müfredatına temel oluşturması umulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler, Dil Öğrenme Stratejileri, Üstün

Yetenekliler, İngilizce Öğretimi

iv

ABSTRACT




PhD Dissertation, English Language Teaching Department

Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr.Rana YILDIRIM

June, 2011, 206 pages

In spite of the fact that education of gifted children is a relatively new concern in

Turkey when compared to other countries, it has created a great interest in what makes

gifted children different from other learners and how they gain from the education

programs provided for them. Though neglected and left to develop on their own (Enç,

2005), gifted individuals do need the understanding of their different characteristics and

thirst for an alternative education. Their learning quickly, being self taught, and having

a good memory they can access easily (CCEA, 2006) are invaluable opportunities to

help gifted learners gain from strategy training which has a great deal to make learning

more organized, systematic and effective. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to

explore the role of strategies-based language instruction in teaching English to young

gifted learners. The study is an action research implemented with 10 gifted students

whose ages ranged from 11 to 13. The study explored gifted children’s attitudes towards

English, the language learning strategies that they already use and their English

proficiency levels. Following this, the participants were provided a strategies-based

language instruction for seven months. During the process, their perceptions of the

effectiveness of the strategy training were elicited regularly through various data

collection tools. Questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, group discussions, interviews,

researcher’s field notes, and written accounts of the students provided insights about the

language learning processes of gifted minds and showed that the students gained a lot

from the strategies-based language instruction and found such instruction very helpful

and effective. Besides, the participants indicated to transfer their knowledge of

strategies to other learning contexts in their lives. It is hoped that this study will shed

v

light on the issue of teaching English to young gifted students in Turkey and contribute

to form a base for an English curriculum specifically designed for gifted learners.

Keywords: Gifted learners, Language Learning Strategies, Gifted, Teaching English

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It’s a real pleasure to thank the people who contributed to this thesis in one way

or other. Completing this thesis would not have been possible without the help and

encouragement of the people in my life.

First of all, I would like to send my heartiest thanks to my supervisor Asst. Prof.

Dr.Rana YILDIRIM for her encouragement and guidance, but more important than

anything else, for her understanding. Things I have learnt from her are not limited to the

academic field, her witty personality and friendly manner helped me enjoy the whole

process without feeling stressed out. I have always felt that she cared for me and my

studies even during the times she had to be away from her office.

Secondly, I would like to thank to Prof. Dr.Hatice SOFU who has been an

important guide not only to me but also to many students who graduated from the

English Language Teaching Department at the University of Çukurova. Each time I

needed to ask for her opinion, I saw that she had a different point of view and could see

details that are usually not noticed by many people. I feel lucky to have her in my thesis

jury and to have gained the opportunity to learn from her. I also would like to thank to

Assoc. Prof. Dr.Ahmet DOĞANAY for his understanding, patience, and guidance that

always created solutions. I should thank him for his comments in designing this study

each phase of which became a real learning journey for me. I am so thankful to both

Prof. Dr.Hatice SOFU and Assoc. Prof. Dr.Ahmet DOĞANAY for helping me in the

absence of my dear supervisor Rana YILDIRIM.

Next, I would like thank to Assoc. Prof. Dr.Şehnaz ŞAHİNKARAKAŞ and

Assoc. Prof. Dr.Ergün SERİNDAĞ for taking time to read my thesis and sharing their

invaluable comments about the study. The positive energy and encouragement that

Assoc. Prof. Dr.Şehnaz ŞAHİNKARAKAŞ gave is worthy of note and appreciation.

I would like to send my very special thanks to my dear friends BurcuBurçay

KARADAYI, Yeşim DOĞAN, Çiğdem ŞAHİN, and Yeliz NUR for their patience in

listening to hours of speaking records to evaluate the students’ performance. Their help

and understanding were very motivating and always there when I needed it most. I also

would like to thank Laura ŞAKIRGİL for her help in proofreading.

My colleagues at BILSEM have always supported me and done their best to

help, but I am indebted to my wonderful friend Aytaç KENDİRCİ ONGUN for her

vii

generosity while sharing her room when I needed to study. She is not only a very

successful psychologist but also a wonderful friend.

I also owe very special thanks to the Çukurova University Research Fund for

their financial support throughout the study (project number: EF 2008 D3).

Each member of the İŞPINAR family deserves my deepest appreciation. I am

thankful to them for always supporting me in my career and making me what I am

today. I am indebted to my parents and sisters and brother Benay, Bilge, Gözde, and

Muhsin for taking care of their nephew Erdem during the times I needed to study.

Being a mother, an academician, and a teacher is not an easy task and

completing this work would be impossible without my husband Ali AKÇAYOĞLU’s

support. I would like to express my gratitude to him for encouraging and supporting me

in each step of this long process.

Last of all, I would like to send my deepest thanks and love to my three-year old

son Erdem AKÇAYOĞLU for trying to protect each word file he saw in the screen by

closing it and saying “This is mummy’s important file!” I should dedicate this thesis to

the SUN of my life, Erdem.

I offer my regards to all of those who supported me in any respect during the

process.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ÖZET…………………………………………………………………………………...iii

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………...…………….iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………...vi

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..…..….xi

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………..…………..…….xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………………….………xiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1.Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..1

1.2.Statement of the Problem……………………………...……...…………………….2

1.3.Background to the Study …..……………………………………………………….4

1.4.Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………..…………6

1.5.Research Questions………………………………………………………………..…6

1.6.Operational Definitions …………………………………………………………….6

1.7.Overview of the Thesis ………………………………………….………………......7

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

2.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………..…….……….9

2.1. Giftedness ………………………………………………………………….……….9

2.1.1. Definitions of Giftedness……………………………………..……..………..9

2.1.2. Intelligence Quotient (IQ)…………………………………………...……...14

2.1.3. A Brief History of Giftedness in the World and in Turkey…………....……16

2.1.4. Characteristics of Gifted Children …………………………………....…….19

2.1.4.1. Cognitive Characteristics …………………………..………………26

2.1.4.2. Metacognitive Characteristics ……………………..……………….27

2.1.4.3. Social-Emotional Characteristics ………………….…...…………..27

2.1.5. Global and Local Practices in the Education of the Gifted ………...………28

ix

2.1.5.1. Education Programs for the Gifted …………………………..…….31

2.2. Language Learning Strategies……………………………………………...……...34

2.2.1. Definitions of Strategies…………………….................................................34

2.2.2. Classification of Language Learning Strategies ……………………...….…38

2.2.3. Why Language Learning Strategies? ………………………………..…..….41

2.2.4. How to Teach Language Learning Strategies ……………………….……..43

2.2.5. Research into Language Learning Strategies ……………............................45

2.2.6. How to Assess the Effect and Use of Language Learning Strategies…........47

2.3. Conclusion …………………………………………………………….……..……49

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..……50

3.1. Pilot Study ………………………………………………………………..……….50

3.1.1. Findings and Conclusions of the Pilot Study ………………………………53

3.2. Research Design …………………………………………………………..………57

3.2.1. Participants ……………………………………………………....................60

3.2.2. Research Questions ………………………………………………..……….61

3.3. Data Collection Procedure …………………………………………….…..………61

3.3.1. Researcher’s Role …………………………………………………..…..…..65

3.3.2. Data Collection Tools ……………………………………………..…….….66

3.4. Data Analysis …………………………………………………………..…….……69

3.5. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….…..70

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

4.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..71

4.1. Research Question 1……………………………………………………………….71

4.2. Research Question 2 ………………………………………………………………86

4.3. Research Question 3 ……………………………………………………………..103

4.4. Research Question 4 ……………………………………………………………..119

4.4.1. The Participants’ Performance regarding Talking about Pictures before

Strategy Training …………………………………………………………..122

x

4.4.2. The Participants’ Performance in Pre-test and Post-test (Talking about

Differences between the Pictures) …………………………………………129

4.4.3. Further Evidence regarding the Participants’ Success in Various Activities

………………………………………………………………………….…..133

4.5. Research Question 5 ……………………………………………………….…….141

4.5.1. Perceptions about Setting Goals, Planning, Selective Attention, and

Prediction Strategies ……………………………………………..…..........143

4.5.2. Perceptions about Dividing Words into Parts, Grouping, and Substitution

Strategies …................................................................................................145

4.5.3. Perceptions about Note-taking Strategy………………………………...…147

4.5.4. Perceptions about Describing Things and Pictures …………………….…148

4.5.5. Further Evidence Displaying the Participants’ Perceptions (Interview Data)

………………………………………………………………….…………..150

4.6. Conclusion …………………………………………………………….…………153

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

5.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………...…… 154

5.1. Evaluation of the Research Questions ……………………………..………..…..154

5.2. Implications and Recommendations for Further Study…………………………..160

5.3. Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………….……164

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………..…………….165

APPENDICES………………………………………………………..………….…..175

CURRICULUM VITAE ………………………………………………….…….…..205

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1. IQ Score Classification …………………………………………..……...…15

Table 2.2 Differences between Bright and Gifted Children ..………………...…….…21

Table 2.3. Characteristics of a Gifted Child …………………………………..………23

Table 2.4. Strategies-based Instruction ………………………………...……...………44

Table 3.1. Participants of the Study ………………………………...…………………60

Table 3.2. Data Collection Procedure ……..........................................…………..……62

Table 3.3. Language Learning Strategies Instructed…………....…………….….……64

Table 4.1. Attitudes towards English ………………………………………….………72

Table 4.2. Attitudes towards Learning English ……………………………………….73

Table 4.3. Attitudes towards English Teacher and Method……………………………73

Table 4.4. Language Aptitude ………………………………………………....………75

Table 4.5. Difficulty of Language Learning ……………………………………..……76

Table 4.6. The Nature of Language Learning …………………………………………77

Table 4.7. Learning and Communication Strategies ……………………….…….……78

Table 4.8. Motivation and Expectations ………………………………………………79

Table 4.9. Cross Tabulation of Perceived English Level according to Grades …….…82

Table 4.10. Language Skills at which the Participants think they are good ………..…82

Table 4.11. Language Skills at which the Participants think they are bad ……………83

Table 4.12. The Participants' ranking regarding the Priority of Language Skills ……..83

Table 4.13. The Participants’ Preferences as to the Ways of Learning English…….…85

Table 4.14. Frequency of Use of Memory Strategies before and after Strategy Training..

………………………………………………………………………….….87

Table 4.15. Frequency of Use of Cognitive Strategies before and after Strategy Training

……………………………………………………………………….…….90

Table 4.16. Frequency of Use of Compensation Strategies before and after Strategy

Training…………………………………………………………….………94

Table 4.17. Frequency of Use of Metacognitive Strategies before and after Strategy

Training…………………………………………………………….………97

Table 4.18.Frequency of Use of Affective Strategies before and after Strategy

Training………………………………………………………………...…..99

Table 4.19.Frequency of Use of Social Strategies before and After Strategy Training

xii

……………………………………………………………………………101

Table 4.20. Ercan’s Think-aloud Protocol ……………………………………...……104

Table 4.21. Dila’s Think-aloud Protocol ……………………………………...……..106

Table 4.22. Oğuz’s Think-aloud Protocol ………………………………….....……...107

Table 4.23. Gizem’s Think-aloud Protocol ………………………………..…………108

Table 4.24. Bertan’s Think-aloud Protocol …………………………………..………110

Table 4.25. Sait’s Think-aloud Protocol ………………………………..………..…..111

Table 4.26. Ayhan’s Think-aloud Protocol ………………………………..…………112

Table 4.27. Beril’s Think-aloud Protocol …………………………………..………..114

Table 4.28. Bartu’s Think-aloud Protocol …………………………………………...115

Table 4.29. Nilgün’s Think-aloud Protocol ……………………………………….…117

Table 4.30. Proficiency Exam Results (Pre-test and Post-test)………………………120

Table 4.31. Dila’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ………………123

Table 4.32. Gizem’s Think-aloud Activity (Talking about Differences) ………..…..124

Table 4.33. Bertan’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ……….…...125

Table 4.34. Ercan’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ………...…..126

Table 4.35. Nilgün’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ……….…..126

Table 4.36. Bartu’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ………….....127

Table 4.37. Oğuz’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ……..………128

Table 4.38. Beril’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences) ……….….…129

Table 4.39. A Comparison of the Participants’ Performance in the Proficiency Test.130

Table 4.40. A Comparison of the Participants’ Performance in the Proficiency Test

(continued) …………………………………………………….…............132

Table 4.41. Pre-strategy Speaking Records for Describing Things ……………….…134

Table 4.42. Post Strategy Speaking Records for Describing Things ………………...135

Table 4.43. The Participants’ Performance in Substituting Words ……………..…...137

Table 4.44. Sample Note-taking Activity ……………………………………...…….138

Table 4.45. The Participants’ Utterances Using Organizational Planning Strategy …140

Table 4.46. Perceptions about the Language Learning Strategies Instructed………..142

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1. Renzulli’s Three-ring Conceptualization of Giftedness …………………..11

Figure 2.2. Gagnè’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent …………….…...12

Figure 2.3. The Five Factors that “Mesh” into Excellence …………………………....13

Figure 2.4. IQ Score Distribution …………………………………………................ 16

Figure 3.1. Action Research Cycle …………………………………………………....58

Figure 3.2. Action Research Cycle of the Study ...........................................................59

Figure 4.1. Pre-test and Post-test Proficiency Exam Scores ……...………………….121

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix 1. Attitudes Questionnaire ..........................................................................175

Appendix 2. English Background Questionnaire ........................................................176

Appendix 3. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)..................................179

Appendix 4. Proficiency Test (Sample Questions) ......................................................183

Appendix 5. PALS: Performance Assessment for Language Students …………..….187

Appendix 6. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)............................188

Appendix 7. Personal Language Goals and Self-assessment ......................................190

Appendix 8. Summary of Think-aloud Protocols (Pilot Study)...................................191

Appendix 9. Paired Samples T-test Results for the Experimental Group: Pre and Post

Tests (Pilot Study) ...................................................................................192

Appendix 10. Paired Samples T-test Results for the Control Group: Pre and Post Tests

(Pilot Study) ..........................................................................................193

Appendix 11. Sample Group Discussion .....................................................................194

Appendix 12. Talking about Differences in pre-test and post-test ..............................200

Appendix 13. Sample Picture used in Think-aloud Protocols .....................................201

Appendix 14. Sample Activity Worksheet for Describing Things ..............................202

Appendix 15. Sample Picture Used in Describing Pictures ........................................204

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

Special education is evidence of the necessity to cater for the needs of children

different from the general population. When the mainstream school programs fail to

reach these students, special education recognizes and responds to their need for

assistance. This encompasses a wide spectrum ranging from specific learning

disabilities to hearing or orthopedic impairments (Ataman, 2003). Although gifted

children are no different from those who need assistance, the education of gifted

individuals is usually ignored. The most apparent reason for this is the belief that gifted

students succeed in life in one way or other. However, a gifted mind can never succeed

alone (Enç, 2005).

Unfortunately, academic needs of many gifted students are not thoroughly

recognized, and so gifted learners are usually left to develop and succeed on their own.

Researchers such as Coleman (1994) and Coleman and Gallagher (1995) highlight that

gifted learners typically receive less individual attention than special education and

remedial students and even less of the scarce educational resources. Although humanity

has reached this fascinating development thanks to gifted minds, there has been little

concern about the educational and developmental needs of gifted individuals. As put

forward by Enç (2005), even in the most developed countries, education of the gifted is

ignored when compared to other areas of special education.

Various studies around the world (e.g. A Nation Deceived, 2004; Coleman,

1994; Coleman & Gallagher, 1995; Levent, 2011) aim to highlight the necessity to

notice and meet the needs of this underserved and even unserved special needs

population. Gifted individuals have a great deal to offer the world and humanity when

they are supported. Therefore, they do need understanding of their different

characteristics and thirst for an alternative education.

2

Educating gifted children means identifying who is gifted in the first place. As

Winner (1998) points out, only the top two to five percent of children are gifted.

Providing educational programs for the needs of the gifted can only be achieved after

reaching this percentage of the population. Today, the most common intelligence tests

are the Stanford-Binet, The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the Wechsler

Intelligence Scale for Adults. The fourth edition of the WISC (WISC-IV) is the most

widely used intelligence test for children (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).

Most gifted programs around the world tend to target children who score above

130 in these tests. They pull the children out of their regular classes for a few hours

each week for general instruction or interaction. These pull-out programs aim to help

gifted individuals learn more, achieve according to their potential, and foster creativity

and positive attitudes towards learning through enriching and challenging programs.

Studies (e.g. Rogers & Span, 1993; Kulik, 1992; Brody & Benbow, 1987; Colangelo,

Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Gagnè & Gagnier, 2004; Gross & van Vliet, 2005)

demonstrate that gifted learners who were exposed to any acceleration or pull-out

programs demonstrated higher academic performance and these programs were found to

have positive effects on the socio-emotional adjustment of the gifted.

Considering the positive outcomes of programs specially designed for the gifted,

Science and Arts Centers (BILSEM) were established in Turkey aiming to serve gifted

children in general pull-out programs. Similar to other countries, Turkish children who

are identified as gifted according to IQ test scores are provided an education program

for a few days a week. Taking into consideration the gifted children chosen for these

programs in Turkey, the focus of this study is on young learners who have been

identified as gifted and who are currently enrolled the Science and Arts Center

(BILSEM) in Adana.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Giftedness and the specific needs gifted students have as individuals have long

been studied. However, research on the effects of gifted programs is still generally

sparse, unsystematic, and far from conclusive (Delcourt, Cornell and Goldberg, 2007).

3

In Turkey, the issue of educating gifted children whose needs are different from

their peers is a relatively new concern when compared to other countries. Especially

with the establishment of Science and Arts Centers (BILSEM) where gifted pupils have

a chance to receive the alternative education they need, many unexplored issues on

understanding and teaching gifted students have come onto the stage. Although the

related literature does a great deal to describe the characteristics of gifted children in

general (see, section 2.1.4 in Chapter 2), it is prominent to find answers to the questions

related to learning characteristics of these special children, how they perceive the

education programs and how much they gain from learning opportunities they are

provided with.

As for Turkey, although a number of studies have explored the psychological,

social, and mathematical perceptions of gifted children in the country (e.g. Burak, 1995;

Şahin, 1995; Yeşilova, 1997; Atalay, 2000; Cürebal, 2004; Tarhan, 2005;Uzun, 2006;

Budak, 2007), there are few, if any, studies on how gifted children learn foreign

languages, English in this context.

Therefore, the picture is still not very clear in such points as how gifted students

learn foreign languages, the exact relationship between giftedness and foreign language

learning, how gifted students differ from average students in learning a foreign

language, and what the optimal learning strategies are for them. To find answers to

these questions, methods other than IQ tests and grade point averages are needed for

identifying gifted students for English and language arts programs (Collins & Aiex,

1995). Only in this way can teachers find a more effective way of instruction and

optimal programs can be designed for gifted pupils. This is needed especially for the

learning and teaching of foreign languages to gifted pupils since this field remains still

unexplored in many aspects. Given this situation, by exploring various unidentified

issues; this study attempts to shed light on the efforts of teaching English to young

gifted students in Turkey.

Throughout history, the best language learners were found to have used

strategies to make their learning more effective (Oxford, 1990). These learners who are

considered “good” language learners unconsciously developed various ways and tactics

to make their learning more effective. In this regard, utilizing language learning

4

strategies can give much evidence regarding the language learning processes of gifted

children. As Oxford (1990) states, although language learning strategies have only been

discovered and named recently, they have been in use for thousands of years. In this

case, the question of whether gifted children make use of these strategies to make their

learning more effective emerges. For this reason, in the first phase of this study, it was

aimed to identify what gifted students do to help themselves learn a foreign language

and to discover whether gifted students make use of language learning strategies

without being trained on their uses.

The relationship between giftedness and the use of learning strategies has

previously been subject to concern. Results of the studies conducted on the learning

differences between gifted and average children show that the gap between gifted and

average students widened as a result of the strategy training provided to the gifted

(Scruggs, Mastropieri, Monson and Jorgenson, 1985). A comparison of gifted and

average learners before and after training provides a clear picture of learning differences

between these two groups. Drawing on this, the second phase of the study aimed to

cater for the language learning needs of gifted students by providing them with

strategies-based English instruction so as to make them better learners. Throughout the

strategy learning process, data gathered from the participants provided insights

pertaining to the use of strategies as well as the effectiveness of strategies-based

instruction. The results obtained from this study are thus hoped to fill the gap in the

field by illustrating some of the unexplored issues pertaining to foreign language

learning of young gifted children in Turkey.

1.3. Background to The Study

Throughout history, some cultures have given special importance to the

education of gifted individuals. Documented examples of these nations are Egypt,

China, Greece, and Rome through the Middle Ages in Europe and Africa, the Islamic

universities of the Middle East, and Polynesia (Barkan & Bernal, 1991).

The learning characteristics of the gifted have also long been studied. Various

studies (Scruggs et al., 1985; Lovecky, 2003) have shown that gifted children are

different from their peers in that they spontaneously employ more elaborate and

5

effective learning strategies and have superior metacognitive ability. The findings of

these studies have also showed that young gifted students employ strategies and

information processing similar to that of adults. Therefore, it is wise to examine the

thinking processes and learning strategies the gifted already utilize so as to have more

concrete comprehension of what makes their minds special.

As stated by Oxford (1990), learning strategies are steps taken by learners to

enhance their own learning, as strategies are tools for active, self-directed involvement.

In this case, learning strategies are of great importance in exploring gifted minds, since

researchers analyze and describe the performance of expert learners in order to better

understand the mental processes involved in learning. Researchers ask these learners to

report on the things they do that help themselves learn (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).

Oxford’s definition of learning strategies implies that successful learners use

strategies making their learning more effective than others. Oxford (1990) also states

that learning strategies can be taught, and actually may be discovered by effective

learners even if they are not taught. It can be concluded that the different learning

strategies which gifted pupils employ make them different from their peers. Therefore,

discovering how they apply these strategies to foreign language learning and finding

how they gain from the application will provide insights on the working of these magic

brains while learning a foreign language.

Learning strategies have proven to be effective in many settings, from students

with learning disabilities to ESL students who are presenting science projects (Chamot,

Barnhardt, El-Dinary and Robbins, 1999). Similar effective results were obtained with

gifted students in their foreign language learning. However, gifted students use more

elaborate and effective language learning strategies and they have the potential to learn

even more when they are provided with strategy training (Scruggs et al., 1985).

Thus, gifted learners can be instructed on language learning strategies with a

view to helping them become more self-directed learners, to support their learning

directly and indirectly, and to involve them in many aspects of learning, not only the

cognitive (Oxford, 1990).

6

1.4. Purpose of the Study

Gifted learners use some learning strategies that make them different from

average learners. Despite the existence of studies about how gifted learners learn in

general, there is a lack of empirical research on how they actually learn foreign

languages. Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold a) to have a thorough

understanding of how gifted young learners learn English as a foreign language; and b)

to make their learning even more effective through strategies-based English instruction.

Hence, the study aims to identify the currently employed language learning strategies of

gifted learners and to extend their repertoire of learning strategies through a strategies-

based English instruction program, with a view to making them more effective language

learners.

1.5. Research Questions

In line with the above mentioned purposes, the following questions guided the

study:

1. What are the attitudes of gifted learners towards learning English?

2. What are the language learning strategies that gifted students already use in

learning English as a foreign language?

3. Does strategies-based English instruction produce any change in gifted

learners’ initial language learning strategies?

4. Does strategies-based English instruction have any effects on gifted

learners’ English proficiency?

5. How do gifted learners perceive strategies-based English instruction?

1.6. Operational Definitions

The following terms to be used in this study should be considered in their

meanings given below:

Special Education: Special education is the education of students with special

needs in a way that addresses the students' individual differences and needs. Intellectual

7

giftedness is a difference in learning and can also benefit from specialized teaching

techniques or different educational programs, but the term "special education" is

generally used to specifically indicate instruction of students whose special needs

reduce their ability to learn independently or in an ordinary classroom, and gifted

education is handled separately.

Gifted: Students who score 130 and above in the intelligence tests (WISC-R in

this context). The participants of this study are all students who were identified “gifted”

as a result of the intelligence tests conducted. “Gifted students”, “the participants”, “the

students participating in the study”, and “learners” are used interchangeably throughout

the study.

BILSEM: Acronym for Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi (Science and Arts Center) in

Turkey, the official center for students who scored above 130 in the intelligence tests

and who were admitted to the programs for the gifted. “BILSEM” and “Science and

Arts Center” are used interchangeably in the study.

Language Learning Strategies: Specific, self-directed steps taken by learners

to enhance their own learning (Oxford, 1990).

Strategy Training/ SBI (Strategies-based Instruction): Strategies-based

instruction (SBI) is a learner-focused approach to language teaching. It encompasses

strategy instructional activities with everyday classroom language instruction (see

Oxford, 2001; Cohen & Dörnyei, 2001). The notion is that students should be given the

opportunity to understand not only what they can learn in the language classroom, but

also how they can learn the language they are studying. Throughout the study the terms

strategies-based instruction, strategy training, and strategy instruction are used

interchangeably.

1.7. Overview of the Thesis

The focus of this study is to understand and improve the way gifted students

learn foreign languages, English in this context. Thus, the first chapter of the thesis

provides a brief introduction to the issue of gifted education both in Turkey and in the

world in general. This chapter also presents the research questions guiding the study.

8

The second chapter is divided into two sections and deals with the theoretical

background of the study. While the first section gives more detailed information

regarding giftedness, education of the gifted and a historical perspective to the issue, the

second section introduces the notion for strategies-based language instruction and gives

detailed information pertaining to language learning strategies.

The third chapter is devoted to methodological considerations and the research

design of the study, including the pilot study. This chapter also presents psedo names

and ages of the participants, data collection procedures and research design in a detailed

way.

Chapter four presents the findings collected from questionnaires, proficiency

exams, written accounts, group discussions, think-aloud protocols and final interviews.

The data obtained from various data collection tools were organized based on the

research questions. Hence, data obtained from the first research question identify the

attitudes of gifted learners towards learning English as well as pinpointing the needs and

expectations of the participants in the language program they are attending. Following

this, language learning strategies that the gifted learners were already utilizing and

whether the instruction they were provided with produced any differences are presented.

Next, students’ success in learning English is evaluated in light of the role of strategies-

based language instruction. Finally, the participants’ perceptions of strategies-based

instruction are presented using the data gathered from group discussions, interviews,

and written accounts.

Chapter five is devoted to discussions and implications of the findings in relation

to teaching English to young gifted learners.

9

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

2.0. Introduction

This chapter is devoted to the theoretical framework of the study and it is

divided into two sections. Since the scope of this study is gifted learners, the first part

reviews the concept of giftedness and explores various aspects of giftedness from both

national and international perspectives. Given that the participants of the study were

provided strategies-based language instruction, the second part focuses on the language

learning strategies and the ways they can be instructed to help students become better

learners.

2.1. Giftedness

Because this study is related to giftedness and the participants are gifted learners

who attend the English program at BILSEM, the following sections are devoted to the

theoretical background of giftedness in general.

2.1.1. Definitions of Giftedness

The concept of giftedness has been subject to different perceptions over time and

place. Although the identification of gifted individuals seems to be easy for many

people due to the performance of the gifted beyond expectations, labeling a person as

“gifted” depends very much on the instrument used for identification (Gallagher, 2008).

For this reason, there is still no global definition of what a gifted student is.

Very common and general definitions of the gifted might be those mentioning

gifted individuals as people who score high in intelligent tests. Most education

programs around the world utilize a Stanford-Binet IQ of 130 or better as the criterion

for the educational programs for gifted students. However, in time, greater importance

has been given to those who may not score high on tests but show superior talent and

10

creative abilities. Hence, an appraisal of different viewpoints on giftedness might help

to shed light on various aspects of the issue.

The Marland report (1972) provided the first formal definition of giftedness

broadly. Giftedness is defined as follows in the report:

Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified

persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high

performance. These are children who require differentiated educational

programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular

school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society

(p.5).

The report acknowledges that children with a high performance demonstrate

achievement or potential ability in the following areas, singly or in combination: a)

general intellectual ability, b) specific academic aptitude, c) creative or productive

thinking, d) leadership ability, e) visual or performing arts, f) psychomotor ability.

Similar to these areas mentioned in the report, Gagnè (2003) asserts that gifted

students are those whose potential is distinctly above average in one or more of the

domains of human ability, such as intellectual, creative, social or physical.

However, a number of researchers stress the relationship between environment

and intelligence. For instance, Piaget points that intelligence is one’s ability to adapt to

one’s environment. In a similar line of thought, according to Sternberg and Wagner

(1982), giftedness is a kind of mental self-management. The mental management of

one's life in a constructive, purposeful way has three basic elements: adapting to

environments, selecting new environments, and shaping environments. Sternberg and

Wagner (1982) also highlight problem-solving abilities of the gifted with their rapid

information processing and use of insight abilities.

Other psychologists such as Thurstone (1938) and Gardner (1983) argued for

multiple dimensions of intelligence. Gardner (1983) points out that there are several

ways of viewing the world and these can be linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial,

musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligence. If this concept

11

of giftedness had been included in Stanford-Binet intelligence test, decisions and

definitions of who is gifted would have completely changed (Gallegher, 2008)

Renzulli’s three-ring conceptualization of giftedness is another significant view

to take into account while defining giftedness. Renzulli (1986) stated that gifted

behavior reflects an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits: above

average ability, task commitment, and creativity. It is important to note that no single

cluster makes giftedness. What is highlighted by Renzulli (1986) is that the interaction

among these clusters is the necessary ingredient for creative-productive accomplishment

(see Figure 2.1 adapted from Renzulli, 1986).

Figure 2.1. Renzulli’s Three-ring Conceptualization of Giftedness

Above average ability, which is the starting point for the identification process

of gifted learners, involves high levels of abstract thinking, verbal and numerical

reasoning, spatial relations, memory, and word fluency. Task commitment is associated

with high levels of interest, enthusiasm, fascination, and involvement in a particular

problem. More qualifications related to task commitment are perseverance,

determination, hard work and dedicated practice. However, together with the above

average ability and task commitment, creativity is the necessary component to make

giftedness. Creativity encompasses fluency, flexibility, originality of thought, curiosity,

openness to experience, and sensitiveness to details (Renzulli, 1986).

12

Renzulli’s three-ring conceptualization of giftedness has been guiding many

programs in the field of gifted education around the world. Another model describing

the potential and capability of gifted learners was proposed by Gagnè (1995, 1999).

Gagnè claims that gifts are natural abilities, and they can become talents only if they are

developed. This development can be enhanced by systematic learning, training, and

practicing of skills that are characteristics of a particular field of human activity or

performance. He identifies two types of catalysts that facilitate or hinder the

development of gifts into talents. These are intrapersonal catalysts (physical and

psychological features influenced by genetic background) and environmental catalysts

(surroundings, people, undertakings, and events). Gagnè uses the following figure

(adapted from Gagnè, 1999) for the theory of DMGT (Differentiated Model of

Giftedness and Talent):

Figure 2.2. Gagnè’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent

13

In a similar vein, Tannenbaum (1983) viewed giftedness as an interaction of five

different factors (see Figure 3): general ability, special ability, nonintellective

facilitators, environmental influences, and chance. The theory is demonstrated in the

following figure:

Figure 2.3. The Five Factors that “Mesh” into Excellence

As seen in Figure 2.3 (adapted from Colangelo & Davis, 1991), according to

Tannenbaum (1997) the development of potential depends on these five sets of

interwoven factors, and chance is one of them. Tannenbaum insists that the role of

chance should never be underestimated in the understanding and development of

extraordinary talent.

Differing from other views, Gallagher (2002) and Sternberg (2003) argue that an

essential component relating to productive thinking, the decision-making ability, is left

out of measurement while identifying the gifted. Moreover, according to Guilford

(1967), intelligence is composed of around 120 factors independent from one other.

14

To summarize, although psychometric theories are based on the assumption that

there are individual differences in intelligence and this can be measured by means of

intelligence tests (Ataman, 2003), there is no one absolute or correct set of criteria to

label someone as “gifted”. For many years, psychometricians and psychologists equated

giftedness with high IQ. Other researchers (e.g. Cattell, Guilford, Thurstone), however,

have argued that intellect cannot be expressed in such a unitary manner. As Johnsen

(2004) points out, a variety of measures should be used when identifying gifted

children’s capability and potential. Therefore, definitions of giftedness depend on

different views of giftedness and more importantly, there are still many disagreements

as to how the label should be applied (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008).

2.1.2. Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

Intelligence quotient (IQ), deriving from tests designed to measure intelligence,

is the most commonly used term in identifying giftedness. It was the German

psychologist William Stern who brought this term into the field of gifted education in

1912. It is the proposed method of scoring children's intelligence tests, specifically the

WISC-R, used for the identification of giftedness in the students participating in this

study.

IQ scores are used in educational contexts to identify individuals needing special

education and the scores affected by factors such as heritability, environment, and social

status of the parents. Early studies on giftedness highlighted the role of genes in

determining IQ, whereas later studies focused more on the effect of environmental

factors. Stoolmiller (1999) found that socio-economic status could account for as much

as 50% of the variance in IQ. Similarly, Eric Turkheimer and his colleagues (2003)

suggest that the role of shared environmental factors may have been underestimated in

older studies which often only studied affluent middle class families.

However, measuring someone’s intelligence and expressing it with numbers has

been subject to much criticism. For instance, Alfred Binet (1905), a French

psychologist, did not believe that IQ tests were qualified to measure intelligence.

Besides, he claimed that a person’s intelligence is not a fixed quantity to be expressed in

15

numbers. Stephen Jay Gould was another researcher to object to measuring intelligence

via IQ tests and ranking people according to the results obtained from the measurement.

Moreover, many criticisms stress the test bias when used in other situations since some

IQ tests, for example WAIS-R, contain cultural influences, which reduces the validity of

these tests.

Despite criticisms, IQ test scores are still the most important criteria all around

the world for education programs designed for gifted learners. Most widely used IQ

tests are the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children (WISC), Stanford Binet, the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive

Abilities, and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children II. Each IQ test may offer a

different classification table for the scores. A normal IQ score, however, ranges between

90 and 109. Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 (adapted from Parenti, 1998) presented below

display a guideline for IQ scores.

Table 2.1

IQ Score Classification

IQ Range WAIS-III/WISC-III Percent of population

130+ Very superior 2.2

120-129 Superior 6.7

110-119 High average 16.1

90-109 Average 50.0

80-89 Low average 16.1

70-79 Borderline 6.7

69 and below Extremely low/ intellectually

deficient

2.2

16

Figure 2.4. IQ Score Distribution adapted from Parenti (1998)

As seen in Figure 2.4, the general cutoff for many programs is often placed near

the sigma 2 level on a standardized intelligence test. Children above this level are

labeled as 'gifted'. Similarly, as seen in the percent of the population for very superior

individuals in Table 1, only around 2.2 percent of the population is gifted. Education

programs around the world designed for the gifted target this population. However, it is

important to note that despite still being very popular, IQ scores are often viewed as

inadequate measures of giftedness.

2.1.3. A Brief History of Giftedness in the World and in Turkey

Education of the gifted is ignored even in the most developed countries when

compared to other special education areas. However, throughout history, some cultures

gave special importance to the education of gifted individuals (e.g. Egypt, China,

Greece, and Rome through the Middle Ages in Europe and Africa, the Islamic

universities of Middle East, and Polynesia) (Barkan&Bernal, 1991).

Across centuries and cultures, exceptional performances and performers have

attracted attention. Thus, the scientific study of giftedness goes as far back as the time

of Darwin and Mendel’s work on the variations in species. One of the Victorian

scientists, Galton, assumed a biological and genetic etiology of giftedness and collected

17

data in 1869. He concluded that giftedness was inherited (Robinson & Clinkenbeard,

2008).

In 1905, French researchers Binet and Simon developed a series of tests to

measure intelligence with a view to separating children with a high IQ from normally

functioning children and placing them in special classrooms. Aiming to identify gifted

individuals, the first intelligence test was developed by Binet in 1905 and later revised

by Lewis Terman. Hence, the first version of an IQ test was published in 1912 and

called the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. In 1916, LewisTerman published the

Stanford-Binet, forever changing intelligence testing (NAGC, 2011)

In the 1920s and 30s, schools began to be criticized for not catering for the needs

of all children. This was the starting point for the studies of giftedness. Lewis Terman

was the first person to specifically study the gifted and use the term “gifted” instead of

“genious”. He believed that nurturing exceptional children was essential for the future

of the country (NAGC, 2011). Terman, whose ideas were affected by Galton, was the

principle investigator of the most famous longitudinal studies in psychology, the

multivolume Genetic Studies of Genius. Nine years younger than

Terman, Hollingworth studied with children with measured IQ scores of 180 and

above. Hollingworth and Terman became the pioneers in gifted education (Robinson &

Clinkenbeard, 2008).

Then, when the Soviet Union launched the first spaceship Sputnik in 1957, other

nations began to realize the importance given to gifted individuals, which made a call

for additional research and programming in the field of gifted education (Ataman,

2003). Several reports published in America (A Nation at Risk, 1983; National

Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent, 1993; A Nation Deceived, 2004)

highlighted the missed opportunities, the inability to meet the needs of most able pupils,

and the advantages of acceleration for gifted children (NAGC, 2011).

Internationally, the Marland report published in 1972 provided the first formal

definition of giftedness broadly. The definition in the report included academic and

intellectual talent, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, creative and productive

thinking, and psychomotor ability. Today, many studies and reports in many countries

as the ones mentioned above highlight the gifted individuals’ special provisions to meet

18

their needs (e.g. A Nation at Risk, 1983; National Excellence: A Case for Developing

America’s Talent, 1993; A Nation Deceived, 2004; Coleman, 1994; Coleman &

Gallagher, 1995; Levent, 2011).

Having made a short summary of giftedness in the world, it might be helpful to

mention the history of giftedness in Turkey, which was once one of the world’s pioneers

in gifted education.

The efforts to notice and educate gifted children in Turkey can be seen in

Enderun School during the Ottoman Empire. Enderun School was a free-boarding

school which recruited students in order to teach the characteristics of Islamic society

and the unique culture of the Ottoman palace (Karpat, 1973). Enderun, functioning for

bureaucratic, academic, and military purposes, was fairly successful and produced many

Ottoman statesmen. It was seen as one of the most interesting and important institutions,

not only in the country, but also in the world. At that time, no similar educational

institutions were present in the world; Endereun schools were unique in catering for the

needs of gifted children and benefiting from their power.

Therefore, Turkey became a pioneer in the education of gifted individuals during

the Ottoman Empire through Enderun School where gifted children were educated to

work for the government (Ataman, 2003). Enderun School functioned strictly for

bureaucratic purposes and, ideally, the graduates were permanently devoted to

government service and had no interest in forming relations with lower social groups

(Karpat, 1973).

Students chosen for the school were educated there for 12-14 years through a

well balanced curriculum including the training of arts, physical education and

occupation. Besides, the role of music and the integration of music and mathematics had

an important place in the education programs applied in this school. More importantly,

special importance was given to the development of good character and personality.

Catering for the needs of gifted individuals and using their potential for the benefit of

the country made the Ottoman Empire a powerful nation for hundreds of years, but in

time this school failed to function, which resulted in its closure in 1909 (Ataman, 2003).

19

Unfortunately, Turkey did not demonstrate a good performance in the education

of giftedness following Enderun School. Other serious issues about the future of the

country and wars postponed the importance given to gifted individuals even long after

the Turkish Republic was founded. In 1948, the Idil Biret Suna Kan Law was launched

and 22 wordwide known gifted individuals (e.g İdil Biret, Suna Kan, Selma Gökçen,

and Naci Özgüç) were educated by the government between the years 1948 and 1978.

However, no one was included in the scope of this law after 1978.

In the Republican era, the first attempt to educate gifted children under the

control of an institution by government was the foundation of Ankara Science School in

1964. The school aimed to help gifted children with superior science and mathematics

abilities to become scientists and researchers. These efforts continued till 1973 when

this school ceased to have education due to several reasons causing closure.

Although there are private schools today dealing with the education of gifted

individuals (e.g. İnanç Türkeş Özel Lisesi (TEVİTÖL) and Yeni Ufuklar), the only

official organization under the control of the government for the education of gifted

children is Science and Arts Centers (BILSEM) (Ataman, 2003). Science and Arts

Centers (BILSEM) have been established by the government to develop, implement,

promote and support educational opportunities for gifted and talented children and

young people as well as providing support for parents and educators. It is a nationally

recognized center of expertise which develops and helps the delivery of gifted and

talented education in Turkey. Today, there are 61 Science and Arts Centers in Turkey

and around 10,000 students attend these centers. This study was conducted in the

BILSEM center located in Adana.

Students who attend these centers may demonstrate very different characteristics

from their peers. Therefore, the following section gives information regarding the

characteristics of gifted children in general.

2.1.4 Characteristics of Gifted Children

It is prominent for parents and teachers to be fully aware of the ways in which

giftedness can be recognized, especially because many gifted individuals are left

undiscovered and thus lose the opportunity to use their potential for the benefit of

20

humanity. Unfortunately, many people have misconceptions about the characteristics

of gifted individuals. Although these myths were studied by Terman even in 1920s,

interestingly they still exist today. Robinson (2008) lists some myths about giftedness

as follows;

-Gifted children are nerds, bookish, socially ill-at-ease, sickly and clumsy.

-Gifted children can be anything they want to be.

-Gifted children do not need help. If they are really gifted, they can manage on their

own.

-Math nerds are the worst.

-The gifted do not need any special type of emotional support.

-Skipping a grade ruins you for life.

-Selective schools shatter your self concept.

-It’s a burden to have a gifted sibling.

-It’s more work to have a gifted child.

-Poor social skills and social vulnerability are an inherent part of being gifted.

-Well, everyone is gifted in some way.

-The future of a gifted student is assured: a world of opportunities lies before the

student.

Beside these common myths about giftedness among the general population,

there are misconceptions about the characteristics of gifted children among teachers,

too. Many teachers define the characteristics of a bright child when they are required to

define the gifted. The following table contrasts the behavioral markers of these two

groups of children (Szabos, 1989). It is prominent to note that all gifted children are

considered bright, but the opposite is not true. Table 2.2 presents differences between

bright and gifted children.

21

Table 2.2

Differences between Bright and Gifted Children

A Bright Child A Gifted Child

Knows the answers Asks the questions

Is interested Is very curious

Pays attention Gets involved mentally and physically

Works hard Can be inattentive and still get good grades

and test scores

Answers the questions Questions the answers

Enjoys same-age peers Prefers adults or older children

Learns easily Often already knows the answers

Is self-satisfied (when gets right

answer)

Is highly self-critical (perfectionists)

Is good at memorizing Is good at guessing

As seen in the table, gifted learners are usually highly curious and ask many

questions to make sense of the world they live in. As put forward by NAGC (2011), a

gifted child shows persistent intellectual curiosity, asks searching questions, and shows

exceptional interest in the nature of man and the universe. However, it is not easy to

provide the explanations they need since they question the answers given, often already

know the answer and thus need more challenging and complicated information. In other

words, gifted children get excitement and pleasure from intellectual challenge.

Another characteristic of the gifted is their perfectionist nature which makes

them highly self-critical. They set realistically high standards for self, and are self-

critical in evaluating and correcting their efforts (NAGC, 2011). It can be hypothesized

that this characteristic may stunt the language learning process from time to time

because of the fact that they may find natural errors that every language learner makes

unacceptable.

Scientists have been interested in discovering the characteristics of the gifted

from various dimensions, which indicates the great interest in what is giftedness and

what makes giftedness. Earlier suppositions about giftedness viewed gifted students as

weak, scrawny, and disturbed individuals. However, longitudinal studies conducted in

22

time demonstrated that gifted students tend to have more positive physical, social, and

personality features than general population. Ataman (2003) states that gifted children

demonstrate early physical development, are usually healthier, have original ideas and

find solutions to problems, have information on a variety of topics, take part in all

activities at school, have self-confidence and express their feelings well, are interested

in issues adults are usually interested in, and have a high sense of responsibility.

Although genius may be equated with madness from time to time, characteristics

of gifted people regarding their psychology are usually positive, even as far back as

Terman’s time (Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 2008). For many years, researchers debated

nature and nurture aspects of intelligence. However, no researcher would claim that it is

purely nature or purely nurture. The debate shed light to the issue of giftedness and it

provided implications for education (Gottfredson, 2003). Nevertheless, IQ tests are still

the most common means of tools for the research on the intellectual characteristics of

the gifted regardless of the fact that scientist have attempted to explore more about the

neuropsychology of intelligence and giftedness with the rapid development of

technology.

Many institutions and organizations around the world define giftedness and

identify characteristics of giftedness in different ways. It is wise to have the knowledge

of these characteristics so as to know gifted learners better and draw more well-based

conclusions regarding their language learning processes.

Some of the general characteristics of Gifted, Talented and More Able Pupils are

given by the Council of Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment - CCEA (2006) as

follows:

23

Table 2.3

Characteristics of a Gifted Child

A gifted child may ….

• be a good reader

• be very articulate or verbally

fluent for their age

• give quick verbal responses

(which can appear cheeky)

• have a wide general knowledge

• learn quickly

• be self taught in their own interest

areas

• have an ability to work things out

in their head very quickly

• have a good memory that they

can access easily

• be artistic

• have strong views and opinions

• show a strong sense of leadership

• be interested in topics which one

might associate with an older child

• communicate well with adults –

often better than with their peer

group

• have a range of interests, some of

which are almost obsessions

• show unusual and original

responses to problem-solving

activities

• prefer verbal to written activities

• be logical

• have a lively and original

imagination / sense of humor

• be very sensitive and aware

• focus on their own interests rather

than on what is being taught

• be easily bored by what they

perceive as routine tasks

Knowledge of general characteristics of gifted learners can give teachers clues

regarding learning and teaching issues in relation to the gifted. Given the above

mentioned characteristics, anyone teaching gifted learners knows that repetitious and

routine tasks, written activities, unchallenging tasks, and slowness can bring along

problems such as boredom or inattentiveness. However, one should not have the

misconception that gifted children have only an academic side. Working with gifted

children also means dealing with special individuals who are very sensitive and aware,

have a lively and original imagination and a sense of humor.

24

More specific to language learning, Piirto (1999) summarises the characteristics

of gifted learners pertaining to Social Studies and Language Arts as follows;

A gifted child,

• Enjoys language/verbal communication, communication skills.

• Engages in intellectual play, enjoys puns, good sense of humor.

• Organizes ideas and sequences in preparation for speaking and writing.

• Suspends judgment, entertains alternative points of view.

• Is original and creative—has unique ideas in writing or speaking.

• Is sensitive to social, ethical, and moral issues.

• Is interested in theories of causation.

• Likes independent study and research in areas of interest.

• Uses these qualities in writing: paradox, parallel structure, rhythm, visual

imagery, melodic combinations, reverse structure, unusual adjectives/adverbs,

sense of humor, philosophical bent (p.241).

As seen above, gifted learners are usually proficient users of their own language

which is evident from their characteristics of being good readers, being very articulate

or verbally fluent for their age, giving quick responses, and preferring verbal to written

activities.

Similar to the characteristics of the gifted given by CCEA (2006), NAGC (2011)

highlights that gifted children are markedly superior in quality and quantity of written

and/or spoken vocabulary; and are interested in the subtleties of words and their uses.

Besides, they read avidly and absorb books well beyond their age. Thinking of the

language activities carried out in language classrooms, one can conclude that gifted

learners enjoy discovering the relationships between words and using them in different

ways.

To the researcher’s knowledge and experience with gifted learners, some of the

characteristics listed seem to apply to the gifted language learners in Turkey. However,

it is helpful to remember that the unique characteristics that make gifted learners special

may turn into a disadvantage from time to time. To exemplify, gifted learners would

like to be fluent speakers of the target language, and can be demotivated in that they

25

cannot be as competent in their native language. This fact reveals itself in speaking and

writing activities. Gifted learners’ large vocabulary knowledge may cause problems

from time to time in that they try to translate advanced vocabulary they prefer to use in

their first language and fail to substitute it with easier words they know. Hence, they are

considered to be unsuccessful in activities that actually do not require advanced

vocabulary.

Parallel to the above mentioned characteristics, it is important to note that gifted

learners may make concepts unduly complex, which hinders completing a task or causes

communication breakdowns. The researcher’s experience revealed that it is quite

common for gifted learners to be stuck with details in pictures given and thus not be

able to answer questions which are originally quite easy when their academic success is

taken into consideration. These factors should be taken into consideration in any foreign

language teaching program to be designed for gifted learners, especially when

evaluating their success.

It can also be concluded that the second language learning process may be

hindered by the students’ setting high standards for self and their self-criticism. Their

performance, which can be seen as quite successful by others when their age and

language level are considered, can often be underestimated by the students themselves.

Another point to be considered is that even those with a little knowledge of

English seek a challenging side in the activities being carried out and that what is

perceived a routine task is usually found boring by gifted students. As pointed out by

Clark (1992) and Seagoe (1974), this may cause them to resist practice or drill and to

question teaching procedures.

One cannot expect a child to have all the characteristics of the gifted described

by educational authorities. However, becoming aware of some general characteristics

may alert parents and educators to take an action about the kind of special program a

gifted child might need. The characteristics listed above give clues pertaining to the

reasons why gifted children do not benefit well from the ordinary educational programs

that they are provided with at schools. In light of this information, one can anticipate

that their curiosity, having a good memory making learning faster and more effective,

26

various interests, a sense of humor and many other characteristics make school learning

slow, uninteresting, unchallenging, and repetitious for them.

In addition to these general characteristics and observations regarding gifted

learners, a brief summary of their cognitive, metacogntive, and social/affective

characteristics are explained below.

2.1.4.1. Cognitive Characteristics

Cognitive characteristics of gifted individuals display how they are different

from others in terms of how they think. According to Rogers (1986), what makes gifted

learners different lies generally in the degree of, not kind of, cognition. Rogers (1986)

claims that gifted learners are probably not employing qualitatively different, unique

thinking abilities. In other words, gifted students tend to acquire and process

information and solve problems better, faster, or at least at earlier ages than other

students.

On the other hand, Wilkinson (1993) found that gifted students showed greater

variability in their profiles and larger verbal-performance discrepancies, scored highest

on subscales reflecting more complex reasoning (e.g. similarities and block design) and

lowest on scales measuring lower-level thinking skills such as coding and digit-span.

This indicates that gifted learners are generally good at higher order thinking skills, but

their thinking at higher levels may cause them to fail in tasks requiring less complicated

thinking.

In identifying the gifted learners’ cognitive characteristics, Butterfield and

Feretti (1987) describe the different characteristics of people with a high IQ as larger,

more efficient memories, larger and more elaborately organized knowledge bases, and

use of more, more complex, and more active processing strategies.

In a similar line of thought, Davidson (1986) detected that unlike other children

who need cues in order to use higher thinking processes, gifted students spontaneously

employ selective coding, combination, and comparison in solving problems.

27

2.1.4.2. Metacognitive Characteristics

Metacognition, or thinking about one’s own thinking, is an important term

associated with giftedness. Shore (2000) asserts that gifted students perform in ways

similar to experts when it comes to metacognition, strategy flexibility, and strategy

planning.

However, the issue of metacognition in giftedness is more complex than it

seems. Shore, Koller and Dover (1994) found that some gifted students made more

metacognitive strategy errors than average students and make the problems more

complex than they are by drawing on imaginary data to help them. This finding warns

educators and researchers against any misjudgments about overall abilities of an

individual who did not perform well in a task (Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 2008).

Studies that aim to find out more about the cognitive and metacognitive

characteristics of gifted individuals used investigation methods and tools of

neuroscience. Two studies shedding light into the issue of how gifted minds function

are worth mentioning. O’Boyle and Gill (1998) found that gifted minds utilized more of

the right hemisphere of the brain while solving various problems than average-ability

individuals. Besides, Jausovec (2000) detected that gifted individuals showed less

overall mental activity and more cooperation between brain areas when compared to

their average ability peers.

2.1.4.3. Social-Emotional Characteristics

Despite the fact that studies on giftedness usually focus on the intellectual

characteristics of the gifted, a number of studies aim to explore the nonintellective

characteristics, social relationships, emotional and personality characteristics, and

motivation (e.g: Kline and Short, 1991a, 1991b; Swiatek, 1995). Findings obtained from

this research are invaluable in contradicting the stereotyped view of giftedness, ignoring

the previously mentioned characteristics of the gifted (Robinson and Clinkenbeard,

2008). Swiatek (1995) found three strategies that gifted individual used to cope with the

social consequences of being gifted: denial of giftedness, popularity/conformity, and

peer acceptance. Her study indicates that the most highly gifted students were the ones

to deny being gifted the most.

28

In spite of the common myths about giftedness, gifted children should not be

assumed to have poor social skills. Robinson (2008) states that gifted students are more

mature socially than their age peers. Although there is a widespread belief that they are

“only” gifted, gifted children and youth exhibit personal maturity that contradicts this

belief. Moreover, it is crucial to note that the basic social needs of gifted children are no

different from those of other children (Robinson, 2008).

However, there are some social needs that are special (if not unique) to gifted

children. The major problem for gifted individuals socially stems from the fact that

gifted children may have difficulty in finding truly compatible friends. Even in their

early childhood, they are surprised to notice that their playmates do not enjoy complex

games with complex rules. Awareness of parents and a rich school setting are the most

valuable things to cater for the needs of gifted children. When they are in a poor setting

not matching their abilities, they tend to be irritable, impatient, negativistic, and even

arrogant due to the circumstances (Robinson, 2008). In time, they may aim to be like

everyone else and suppress their curiosity and abilities.

Although strengths of gifted individuals indicate great learning characteristics,

possible problems associated with it should be noted so as to alert parents and

educators. Any educational program designed for gifted learners has to meet all of the

needs that arise from the characteristics specific to this population. When their needs are

not met, the result can be frustration, failure, and even behavior disorders.

However, program planning for the needs of gifted learners is not an easy task.

In regular school programs, one has to fight with the notion that gifted children will

make it without help. This kind of an approach is erroneous, and it is the source of

ignorance for catering for the needs of these special children.

The following section gives information regarding the identification and

education of gifted individuals at global and national level.

2.1.5. Global and Local Practices in the Education of the Gifted

Identifying who is gifted is a hard task because it encompasses many variables.

When features such weight or height of an individual can be measured and stated

29

internationally, measurement of intelligence can change depending on the culture,

society, socio-economic status and country (Ataman, 2003). Although educators

recently have been discussing a more flexible and acceptable approach to measure

intelligence, there is no consensus about a certain and common measurement of

intelligence.

Advantages and disadvantages of identifying someone as gifted must be

considered during the identification process. Heller and Schofield indicate the following

dangers associated with labeling: social isolation, development of egocentric attitudes

and behaviours, endangering or disturbing the personality development and self concept

through extreme achievement pressures or too much responsibility. Robinson and

Clinkenbeard (1998), on the other hand, report feared negative effects in a small number

of cases. In their study, most of parents and classmates reacted positively to the label of

gifted.

Many countries in the world still make use of the IQ tests to identify and nurture

the gifted population. Although innovative approaches highlight the importance of

applying methods other than IQ tests in identifying giftedness, they are still the most

popular methods. The reasons for this preference are varied. Firstly and most

importantly these tests are the most available methods which are cheap, reliable, quick,

and valid. Secondly, most educational programs for the gifted rely heavily on the IQ

measurement. Lastly, IQ tests seem to be the most practical and reliable means of

measurement until new approaches gain consensus among educators.

Heller and Schofield (2008) describe the steps of the identification procedure as

follows:

1. General Screening: this step includes a less precise, but wider range of

factors and instruments such as checklists and rating scales which help

teachers or educators to nominate individuals fitting the characteristics in

the list.

2. Utilization of More Precise Tests: Individual talent dimensions require the

use of more precise tests. This step involves the utilization of these test.

3. Collection of Individual and Social Moderator Variables: At this step of the

identification procedure, individual and social moderator variables which

30

are relevant to the training gifted program or special education measures are

collected.

As for Turkey, based on standards for the assessment and identification of gifted

learners published by the Ministry of National Education, BILSEM employs a three-

phase process: nomination, screening, and selection and placement

Nomination: Every year, observation forms aimed to identify gifted individuals

are sent to pre-school, primary and secondary schools. Teachers are asked to nominate

gifted children by using the observation forms including characteristic traits of gifted

children. Students who fit within these categories are included in the nomination

process and forms are sent to the center.

Screening: The identification committee determines which students will proceed

to the second phase: screening. A two-stage process of screening is employed: Group

screening and individual screening. All nominated students take a screening test and on

the basis of their performance on this test, the identification committee decides which

students will proceed to further screening. At this stage, students are administered an

individualized intelligence test in which the cut-off score is 130 and above.

Selection/placement: Students who score 130 and above in the intelligence test

are placed in support programs. Once the students finish the support program in which

they are observed systematically, they are accepted to the individual training in which

they are taught subjects according to their interests and abilities.

IQ tests are the most commonly used types of measurement in identifying

giftedness. However, most IQ tests fail to discriminate between different IQ levels.

Instead, they are used to label those who are gifted. For instance, Wechsler tests are

designed for IQ ranges between 70 and 130 and are not intended to be used for extreme

IQ ranges. Although now outdated, Stanford-Binet intelligence test is considered to

have the sufficient ceiling for the identification of exceptionally or profoundly gifted

individuals. The Stanford-Binet Form V and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children—Fourth Revision, both recently released, are currently being evaluated for

31

this population. The participants of this study were identified as gifted as a result of the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.

Hence, IQ tests should be taken into account in terms of their shortcomings

regarding identification. Studies conducted so far have shown that that no single

measure can be used in isolation to accurately identify a gifted child. Schools all around

the world utilize various measures such as portfolios, classroom observations,

achievement measures, and intelligence scores.

2.1.5.1. Education Programs for the Gifted

There is quite a substantial amount of research indicating the fact that gifted

children spend at least one-forth to one-half of classroom time waiting for others to

catch up (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008). Kaufman & Sternberg (2008) summarize the

problems gifted children face when they are not provided with the programs meeting

their needs with these words: “Children with creative and practical abilities are almost

never taught or assessed in a way that matches their pattern of abilities may be at a

disadvantage in course after course, year after year” (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008;

p.82). Thus, educational needs of gifted children are self-evident.

Educational implications for the gifted are quite related to the conceptions of

giftedness. Although the modern conception of giftedness supports the view that

intelligence should be measured considering its constantly changing nature, this view

receives little attention in the typical school setting. Therefore, IQ tests and programs

designed for individuals having a certain cut-off point in these tests are still dominant in

many countries around the world. A review of educational programs designed to cater

for the needs of the gifted might be helpful in understanding the education of the gifted.

Renzulli and Reis are two important figures in the field of giftedness. Renzulli's Three-

ring Conception of Giftedness (see Figure 2.1) has guided many educational programs

in the world. Renzulli first introduced The Enrichment Triad Programming Model and

later The Revolving Door Identification Model. He then combined these models with

SEM (Schoolwide Enrichment Model) which aims to apply general enrichment

techniques to all students, not only the gifted (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008).

32

The Enrichment Triad Model has been implemented and found to be successful

in many educational settings around the world. Gifted young people have showed

creative productivity and their educational experiences have been guided by this

programming approach. Renzulli (1986) proposed three types of enrichment

experiences for students.

Type I Enrichment model makes it possible for students to be involved in general

exploratory experiences such as field trips, guest speakers, demonstrations, artistic

performances, and mini courses.

Type II Enrichment model aims to develop thinking, feeling, research,

communication and methodological processes through instructional methods and

materials. Training activities include the development of (1) creative thinking and

problem solving, critical thinking, and affective processes; (2) a wide variety of specific

learning how-to-learn skills; (3) skills in the appropriate use of advanced-level reference

materials; and (4) written, oral, and visual communication skills. In addition to these

general activities, Type II enrichment involves specific activities which cannot be

planned in advance and usually involves advanced methodological instruction in an

interest area selected by the student.

Type III Enrichment model allows gifted students to work at advanced

professional levels by participating in investigative activities and artistic production.

Students are willing to commit the time required for advanced content acquisition which

aims to develop self-directed learning skills, task commitment, self-confidence, and

feelings of creative accomplishment.

Other education programs designed for the gifted are summarized by Kaufman

& Sternberg (2008). Some of these programs mentioned below are implemented in

different countries. Some examples of the briefly explained programs for the gifted are

SMPY, Russian programs, and German programs.

SMPY stands for “Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth” and through the

Diagnostic Testing-Prescriptive Instruction, SMPY counsels students to develop

challenging individualized programs. The program aims to provide an optimal match

33

between the learner’s particular cognitive abilities and the educational program

provided them.

In Russia, Olympiads are important opportunities for the gifted and talented

individuals since they include not only people with scholastic abilities but also

musicians, artists, poets, and other artistic children. Other festivals are geared toward

gifted computer scientists, engineers, and architects. In addition, a number of

specialized schools, some of which are boarding schools, educate children from 7.30

a.m. to 11 p.m., aiming to develop talent in children. These schools follow an

acceleration model combined with a compensatory core group of classes and special

seminars. Students attending this program are expected to participate in Olympiads

specific to the area of giftedness.

Russian programs also have specialized schools adopting multidisciplinary

educational programs. Moscow School, Sozvezdie, follows a different model than the

acceleration model. Through an interdisciplinary program based on systems conception

of giftedness, the program aims to teach general thinking skills, strategies for creative

thinking, and a variety of strategies.

As for Germany, The Center for the Study of Giftedness, established in 1988,

adopted the multifactor model of giftedness with the notion that giftedness is not

identical to high IQ. Thus, students’ IQ reports are not mentioned to parents and

teachers. A widely adopted model for identifying giftedness is the ENTER model,

which strands for five strategies: explore, narrow, test, evaluate, and review. Jena Plan

Schools, founded by German educator and scientist Peter Peterson, are known as a good

example of the modern conceptions of giftedness translated into educational practice.

The school has six basic principles: a) they are integrated into a social environment, b) a

family structure with three different levels (lower, middle, and upper) instead of the

age-graded classes, c) pull-out instruction groups according to the ability and level of

the child, d) students are grouped around tables, with four to six children in a group, e)

as much as possible, the school reflects natural learning situations in everyday life, and

f) social learning is emphasized (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008).

34

Countries have different organizations and education programs specifically

designed for the gifted. On account of the fact that the scope of this study is the foreign

language learning processes of gifted learners in Turkey, this section has provided a

summary of only a number of well-known programs in the world. In Turkey, those

identified as gifted according to the IQ test scores, enroll in both their schools and

BILSEM. Together with the changes in the identification and education process of

gifted students, there have also been some changes in implementations regarding the

process of selecting students for BILSEM.

Having discussed giftedness together with the nature of education that is

required, the following section examines language learning strategies with a view to

forming a base for the research undertaken.

2.2. Language Learning Strategies

This study aims to provide gifted students with strategies-based language

instruction with a view to making them more effective learners. Hence, the following

sections focus on the theoretical background of the strategies-based instruction.

2.2.1. Definitions of Strategies

The word “strategy” is the key point in understanding the rationale of a

strategies-based language instruction. A dictionary definition of the word suggests that a

strategy is “a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a

specific goal or result” (dictionary.com, 2011). When this definition is considered in a

language learning context, it can be concluded that students use specific plans, methods,

maneuvers or stratagems so as to maintain their goal for learning a foreign language.

Hence, the main purpose of a strategies-based language instruction is providing the

introduction of these helpful methods with a view to making students’ learning more

effective.

Before giving the definition of language learning strategies, it is important to

note that learning strategies have gained wide acceptance in education under various

names, such as learning behaviours (Wesche, 1977; Politzer and McGroarty,1985),

tactics (Seliger, 1984), techniques (Stern, 1992), even learning skills, learning to learn

35

skills, thinking skills, and problem solving skills. Various definitions of language

learning strategies, some of which are presented below, explain what the strategy means

in a language learning context.

Rubin defines learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner

may use to acquire knowledge” (Rubin, 1975; p.43). Language learning strategies help

learners in their foreign language learning process. Fundamentally, they are the things

learners do to aid their understanding of the target language. This role of language

learning strategies is emphasized by Oxford (1990). She describes language learning

strategies as specific, self-directed steps taken by learners to enhance their own

learning.

In a similar vein, O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p.1) define learning strategies as

“the special thoughts and behaviours that individuals use to help them comprehend,

learn, or retain new information”. Cohen emphasizes that the strategies are used for both

learning and the use of the second language. According to him, language learning

strategies constitute the steps or actions consciously selected by learners either to

improve the learning of a second language or the use of it, or both (Cohen, 1998).

The features of language learning strategies in helping learners to internalize,

retrieve, store, and use L2 knowledge are highlighted in the definitions given by Nunan

(1991), Rigney (1978), and Dansereau (1985). While the former defines language

learning strategies as cognitive strategies and processes for internalizing and atomizing

L2 knowledge (Nunan, 1991), the latter as learning strategies are operations employed

by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information (Rigney,

1978; Dansereau, 1985). Another definition given by Schmeck (1988) also stresses the

role of language learning strategies in enhancing knowledge integration and retrieval.

He believes that language learning strategies are considered to be any behaviors or

thoughts that facilitate encoding in such a way that knowledge integration and retrieval

are enhanced.

As evident from these definitions, despite highlighting different dimensions of

learning and learner, the definitions suggested by various researchers share some

common features such as the role of these strategies in helping learners. In this study,

36

the term language learning strategies is used in accordance with Oxford’s (1990)

definition. She states that “learning strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to

make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and

more transferrable” (p.1).

Given the common features of language learning strategies mentioned above,

Grenfell and Harris (1999) state that learning strategies focus on the learner, rather than

a perfect teaching method. It is important to remember that with the focus on learners,

language learning strategies have many features which bring positive outcomes in a

language classroom. Therefore, these features might be worth mentioning for better

comprehension of their functions in learning.

Firstly, language learning strategies provide the opportunity for an active

participation of learners in their learning. In this way, strategies serve the broad goal of

communicative competence (Oxford, 1990). Besides, they support learning both

directly and indirectly by involving direct, indirect and powerful learning opportunities.

Strategies-based instruction requires learners to display conscious effort to take control

of their learning.

Secondly, they help learners to become more self-directed. In point of fact, self-

direction is one of the main goals in strategies-based instruction. As Oxford (1990;

p.10) states, “Self directed students gradually gain greater confidence, involvement, and

proficiency”. In addition, the roles of teachers are also expanded in such training.

Teachers go beyond their roles as parent, instructor, leader, evaluator, and controller

and gain new functions such as facilitator, helper, guide, consultant, adviser,

coordinator, idea person, diagnostician, and co-communicator (Oxford, 1990).

Strategies can also be regarded as problem-oriented and flexible (Oxford, 1990).

These features enable teachers to prepare learner-based strategies, serving to solve a

specific problem experienced in the language learning process. As stated in the

definitions, language learning strategies are used as tools to solve a problem, to

accomplish a task, to meet an objective, or to attain a goal. On account of the fact that

they are flexible, the strategies do not need to be in predictable sequences or in precise

patterns. Strategy training involves a great deal of individuality. However, the

37

individuality involved in the process makes language learning strategies influenced by a

variety of factors such as degree of awareness, stage of learning, task requirements,

teacher expectations, age, sex, nationality/ethnicity, general learning style, personality

traits, motivation level, and purpose for learning (Oxford, 1990).

Researchers (e.g. O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) indicate that language learning

strategies are beneficial for learners at different language levels. Oxford (1990)

highlights that language learning strategies can be taught and even the best learners can

benefit from strategy training. However, the use of language learning strategies is not

always observable especially because they are used outside of the classroom where the

teacher is absent. Therefore, the assessment of the effects of strategies on learners’

success requires the use of various data collection tools, which will be discussed in a

separate section in detail (see Section 2.2.6).

It is important to note that L2 learning strategies are associated with many

cognitive, affective, and demographic factors such as motivation, learners’ beliefs,

language proficiency, and gender. Therefore, it is wise to get to know students better

before starting to provide them a strategies-based instruction. This process may include

pinpointing the problems (strategies are problem-oriented), holding awareness

discussions (strategy training is a conscious process), and identifying needs (strategies

help learners plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning).

As the above mentioned features suggest, language learning strategies make

learners more self-directed by supporting their learning both directly and indirectly.

Their being flexible and teachable indicates that they can be helpful for learners from a

variety of groups and proficiency levels and thus provide learners the opportunity to

gain from strategy training. However, conducting strategies-based instruction and

evaluating the effects of such instruction means having knowledge of the strategies

available in the literature. The number of strategies is too many to be mentioned in this

context, but it may be helpful to introduce some of the classifications suggested by the

researchers in the field.

38

2.2.2. Classification of Language Learning Strategies

Language learning strategies are named and grouped differently by various

researchers (e.g. O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wenden and Rubin 1987; Oxford 1990;

Stern 1992; and Ellis 1994). As Oxford (1990) states, there is no complete agreement on

exactly what strategies are, how many strategies exist, how they should be defined,

demarcated, and categorized. She thinks that classification conflicts are inevitable and

as acknowledged by Stern (1992, p.264) “there is a certain arbitrariness in the

classification of learning strategies”.

However, strategies seem to reflect more or less the same categorizations. While

O’Malley (1985) classifies strategies as a) Metacognitive b) Cognitive and c)

Socioaffective; Rubin (1987) used more or less the same classification by using a)

Learning Strategies (Cognitive and Metacognitive), b) Communication Strategies, and

c) Social Strategies. In the same year as O’Malley, Weinstein & Mayer (1985) used a

different classification in which they named the groups as a) Rehearsal Strategies, b)

Elaboration Strategies, c) Organizational Strategies, d) Comprehension Monitoring

Strategies, and e) Affective Strategies.

Oxford (1990), whose studies guided this study as well as many studies in the

world, introduces a more detailed classification. She divides the strategies into two

broad categories called Direct and Indirect. She further divides them so that memory,

cognitive, and compensation strategies fall into the Direct Strategies category while

metacognitive, affective, and social strategies are in the Indirect Strategies category.

Another classification is made by Stern (1992) who used the following categories for

language learning strategies: a) Management and Planning Strategies, b) Cognitive

Strategies, c) Communicative - Experiential Strategies, d) Interpersonal Strategies, and

e) Affective Strategies.

A brief definition of the common categories mentioned above might shed more

light on the role of strategies in learning. Learning Strategies in part is based on the

cognitive learning theory, which views learning as an active, mental, learner-

constructed process. This purpose is parallel to the general purpose of strategy

39

instruction, one of the main goals of which is learners’ active participation and

independence.

While communication strategies mainly focus on the interaction in the target

language and overcoming difficulties faced in communication cognitive strategies

enable students to manipulate the language materials directly using strategies such as

reasoning, analysis, note-taking, summarizing, synthesizing, outlining, reorganizing

information to develop stronger schemas (knowledge structures), and practicing

structures and sounds formally (Oxford, 1990). Rubin (1975) defines cognitive

strategies as steps or operations used in learning or problem-solving that require direct

analysis, transformation, synthesis or learning materials and she identifies six main

cognitive learning strategies contributing directly to language learning namely

clarification / verification, guessing / inductive inference, deductive reasoning, practice,

memorization, and monitoring. Oxford (1990, p.43) summarizes that “with all their

variety, cognitive strategies are unified by a common function: manipulation or

transformation of the target language”.

Metacognitive strategies, on the other hand, help learners manage their learning

process. Oxford (1990) suggests three strategy sets included in metacognitive strategies:

a) centering your learning, b) arranging and planning your learning and c) evaluating

your learning. Some of the strategies in these sets are identifying one’s own learning

style preferences and needs, planning for an L2 task, gathering and organizing

materials, arranging a study space and a schedule, monitoring mistakes, and evaluating

task success (Oxford, 1990). Oxford states that metacognitive strategies are helpful for

learners especially when they lose their focus because of too much newness. According

to her, this focus can only be regained by the conscious use of metacognitive strategies.

The difference between cognitive and metacognitive strategies is that cognitive

strategies enable the cognitive progress while metacognitive strategies monitor that

progress. Students seem to use cognitive strategies more often than metacognitive ones.

However, students might benefit from the acquisition of metacognitive strategies to

monitor their learning and thereby become more efficient learners.

Social strategies aid learning about the culture of target language as well as the

language itself. According to Wenden and Rubin (1987) social strategies indirectly

40

contribute to learning since they do not lead directly to the obtaining, storing, retrieving,

and using of language. Oxford (1990) too classifies social strategies under the category

of “indirect strategies”. Some examples of social strategies are asking questions to get

verification, asking for clarification of a confusing point, asking for help in doing a

language task, talking with a native-speaking conversation partner, and exploring

cultural and social norms (Oxford, 1990).

Memory strategies, sometimes called “mnemonics”, are known as the oldest

strategy used for remembering useful information. Oxford (1990) states that although

the mind can store 100 trillion bits of information, only part of this potential can be used

unless memory strategies help. These strategies enable learners to link one L2 item or

concept with another. Rhyming, creating a mental picture of the word itself or the

meaning of the word, combining sounds and images, acting out and locating (e.g. on a

page or blackboard) are some of the memory-related strategies.

Compensation strategies help learners to use new language for either

comprehension or production, despite limitations in knowledge (Oxford, 1990).

Guessing from the context, talking around the missing word, and using gestures are

some examples. By compensating for the missing information through strategies,

learners go on using the target language. Oxford claims learners who are skilled in such

strategies sometimes communicate better than those who know more target language

words and structures.

Affective strategies are those related to the feelings toward learning in the L2

learning process. The word “affective” refers to emotions, attitudes, motivations, and

values (Oxford, 1990). This aspect may have the biggest influence on the success or

failure of the learners. Negative feelings inhibit the learning process whereas the

positive ones accelerate it. Some examples of affective strategies are lowering your

anxiety by using progressive relaxation, encouraging yourself by making positive

statements or rewarding yourself, taking your emotional temperature by listening to

your body, writing a diary or discussing your feelings with someone else.

41

Different names and classifications of the strategies serve one common goal:

enhancing the foreign language learning process. The following section presents the

rationale for using language learning strategies in L2 learning.

2.2.3. Why Language Learning Strategies?

Over the years, many methods focusing on different aspects of learning, each

having their own strengths and weaknesses, have had their places in the field of

language teaching. Learners all over the world have been influenced by these methods

and language programs that have been developed or rearranged accordingly.

Strategy research in applied linguistics dates back to 1966 when Aaron Caron

published his study named “The Method of Inference in Foreign Language Study”,

which was followed by a series of empirical studies on “good language learners” such

as Rubin’s (1975) and Stern’s (1975).

Researchers, such as Larsen-Freeman (1987) and Tarone and Yule (1989),

suggest that there is a shift away from telling the right and wrong things in a language

classroom to eclecticism, which tends to see the merits of a wide variety of possible

methods and approaches. This trend leads to interest in the contribution made by

learners themselves in the teaching/learning partnership (Griffiths, 2003). With research

conducted by educators such as Oxford (1990), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Bialystok

(1991), Cohen (1991), Wenden (1991), and Green and Oxford (1995), learners have

begun to be seen as individuals who can take charge of their own learning and achieve

autonomy by the use of learning strategies.

Language learning strategies are known to be used even in ancient times; for

instance, storytellers remembered their lines better through the use of mnemonic or

memory devices. Throughout history, the best language students were found to have

used strategies to make their learning more effective (Oxford, 1990). These learners,

who are called “good” language learners, unconsciously developed various ways and

tactics to make their learning more effective. Giving learners the opportunity to explore

these ways and tactics can be enhanced by the introduction of strategies. There are

42

various reasons that make strategies-based instruction appealing not only for learners

but also for teachers.

Firstly and most importantly, language learning strategies enhance learner

autonomy. The notion of teaching language learning strategies is to make learners

independent by helping them to learn the nature of learning and gain linguistic

autonomy (Grenfell & Harris, 2002). In other words, teaching learning strategies

provides an opportunity to shift away the responsibility of learning from teachers to

learners. When learners become aware of “learning to learn”, they recognize the

processes in their minds and take control of their own progress. As proposed by Chamot

et al. (1999), the instruction of learning strategies is based on the idea that students are

more effective when they take control of their own learning. “Learning how to learn” is

the source of the idea of learner training and strategy instruction.

Second, language learning strategies help learners to know themselves and

language learning processes better. As stated by Grenfell & Harris (1999), strategies-

based instruction “systematically raises the learners’ awareness of the learning/teaching

processes in which they are participating” and “gets learners to recognize their own

cognitive styles and to develop their learning strategies accordingly” (p.50). Language

learning strategies not only help learners to better understand themselves as language

learners but also give teachers an opportunity to be aware of how their students learn.

This feature of language learning strategies is emphasized by Chamot et al. (1999), too.

When the learners realize that the things they do can have positive effects on their

success, they feel motivated to succeed in the target language. As Rubin points out:

Often poorer learners don’t have a clue as to how good learners arrive at their

answers and feel that they can never perform as good learners do. By revealing the

process, this myth can be exposed (1990, p. 282).

Next, language learning strategies have positive effects on language

performance. They contribute to the success of learners by making their learning easier,

faster, and more organized. Researchers (e.g. Wenden & Rubin, 1987; O’Malley

&Chamot 1990; Chamot & O’Malley,1994) gave extensive importance to language

learning strategies in making language learning more efficient and in producing

43

positive effects on learners’ language use, the ultimate goal of learning a foreign

language. Most studies (Bremmer, 1999; Philips, 1990; Green & Oxford, 1995) have

uncovered a positive, linear relationship between strategy use and language

performance. In a similar way, students’ low English-learning motivation was found to

be significantly correlated with their low use of learning strategies (Lan, 2005).

Last but not least, language learning strategies are learner-centered. As

Weinstein and Mayer (1986) point out, learning is an active process that occurs within

the learner and that can be influenced by the learner. In a parallel line of thought,

Nyikos and Oxford (1993, p.11) state that “learning begins with the learner”. Even the

most perfect method or teacher can fail since it is the learner who does the learning

(Griffiths, 2003). Studies focusing on the learner and learning are becoming more and

more mature and clear, bringing with them implications for classroom teaching. Ellis

(1994) explains that the study of learning strategies holds considerable promise, both for

language pedagogy and for explaining individual differences in second language

learning.

As Oxford (1990) clearly summarizes, strategy instruction is essential since

“learners need to learn how to learn, and teachers need to learn how to facilitate the

process” (p.201). She also adds that spoon-feeding in a language classroom cannot lead

to communicative competence, what learners need is active self direction in the process

of language learning. Based on this, several studies around the world (e.g. O’Malley &

Chamot, 1990; Wenden, 1989) have focused on both teaching learners how to use

strategies and finding out the outcome of such instruction, which has resulted in

advantages incorporated in strategy training.

2.2.4. How to Teach Language Learning Strategies

Designing strategies-based instruction is not an easy task. As suggested by

Harris and Macaro (2001), strategy training is a gradual, recursive and longitudinal

process. Above all, it expands the role of teachers with the necessity of considering

both language and strategy issues. As Samuda (2005) clarifies, the design of learning

activities has to balance the demands of both language and strategy practice, which adds

44

a further layer of complexity to an already complex and relatively under-researched

process.

Knowing language learning strategies is a broad issue which should be

enlightened in terms of how it looks in practice. There has been a lively debate in the

research community as to whether separate instruction of the strategies is more effective

or integrating such instruction into language learning materials. Discussions on how it

can best be achieved are still on-going. A number of researchers, such as Mc Donough

(2005), O’Malley, Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990), and Cohen (1998), have contributed

to the issue of strategy based instruction and their suggested step by step

implementation clues are summarized in Table 2.4. This study was based on the

suggestions put forward by Chamot & O’Malley (1994), Chamot et al. (1999), and

Oxford (1990).

Table 2.4

Strategies-based Instruction

SOURCE

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

STAGE 4

STAGE 5

(Chamot&O’Malley ,

1994; Chamot et al.,

1999).

Preparation Presentation Practice Evaluation Expansion

Oxford (1990)

p. 204

Planning

Preparation Conduction Evaluation Revision of

the training

Cohen- SBI for

Learners of a Second

Language (1998)

Describing,

modeling and

giving

examples of

strategies

Eliciting

additional

examples

from students

Leading

discussions

about

strategies

Encouraging

students to

experiment

strategies

Integrating

strategies

into every

day class

materials

Mc Donough (2005)

Preview

(previewing

materials for

useful

Present

presenting a

strategy by

naming it and

Model

Modeling the

strategy and

providing

Develop

Developing

students’

ability to

45

strategies +

the students’

own current

repertoire

explaining

why and

when to use it

practice

opportunities

evaluate

strategy use

and

developing

skills to

transfer

strategy use to

new tasks

Cohen (1998) states that SBI is not prescriptive, instead, it provides a panalopy

of strategies and students must determine which to use, when, for what purposes, and

how. To be able to do this, students need to be aware of the value and purpose of

learning strategies. However, Chamot (1994) states that simply raising awareness is not

enough, learners should be provided with the opportunities to put these strategies into

practice for authentic purposes. Similarly, Macoro (2001) points out that learners need

to be presented with strategies repeatedly and explicitly through modeling within the

language program.

However, it is important to remember that the purpose of a strategies-based

instruction should not be changing learners’ approach or behavior. Grenfell & Harris

(1999) suggest that the focus of strategy training should be raising awareness, enabling

learners to expand their repertoire and make choices, and capitalizing on their preferred

learning styles. Overall, the ultimate goal of putting learners at the center of strategies-

based instruction is responding their preferences.

Chamot et al. (1999) state that “across settings, successful strategies instruction

includes several common elements” (p.34). The different sources shown in the table

above also have common elements in the process in that they all mention the

preparation, presentation, evaluation and expansion stages, though using different terms.

2.2.5. Research into Language Learning Strategies

Studies focusing on the learner and learning are becoming more and more

mature and clear, bringing with them implications for classroom teaching. Ellis (1994)

points out that the study of learning strategies holds considerable promise, both for

46

language pedagogy and for explaining individual differences in second language

learning.

Early studies on giftedness (Robin, 1975; Stern, 1975) usually focused on listing

and classifying the strategy use of learners. These studies tended to identify the

strategies used by good language learners and investigated issues related to successful

and unsuccessful language learners.

Later studies (e.g. Green and Oxford, 1995; Park, 1997) searched the

relationship between strategy use and language development. These studies indicated

that higher level students used more strategies making them better learners. A number

of studies focusing on gender in utilising language learning strategies detected

considerable evidence revealing more frequent use of language learning strategies by

female students. Some of these studies were conducted by Ehrman and Oxford (1989),

Oxford and Nyikos (1989), and Green and Oxford (1995).

A great number of research (e.g. Cook, 1991; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Oxford,

1990) aiming to identify the effects of strategy training detected that students can be

taught language learning strategies and provided the opportunity of improving their

language level through strategy training.

Language learning strategies contribute to the success of learners by making

their learning easier, faster, and more organized. Researchers (e.g. Wenden & Rubin,

1987; O’Malley &Chamot 1990; Chamot & O’Malley,1994) gave extensive importance

to language learning strategies in making language learning more efficient and in

producing positive effects on learners’ language use, the ultimate goal of learning a

foreign language. Most studies (Bremmer, 1999; Philips, 1990; Green & Oxford, 1995)

have uncovered a positive, linear relationship between strategy use and language

performance. In a similar way, students’ low English-learning motivation was found to

be significantly correlated with their low use of learning strategies (Lan, 2005). Several

studies around the world (e.g. O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wenden, 1989) have focused

on both teaching learners how to use strategies and finding out the outcome of such

instruction, which has resulted in advantages incorporated in strategy training.

47

2.2.6. How to Assess the Effect and Use of Language Learning Strategies

As the role of strategy use and the effects of strategy training take place in the

mind, it is not always easy to evaluate the changes in students. Standardized and other

traditional tests cannot capture the mental processes (Chamot et al., 1999). As stated by

Oxford (1990) many language learning strategies take place mentally and cannot be

observed by the teacher.

The success of strategies-based instruction needs to be measured through reliable

and valid means for measuring students’ entry-level deficits and their progress

(Weinstein, 1985). Although the assessment of strategy training is not an easy task, a

variety of data collection tools, such as interviews, think-aloud protocols, and

questionnaires can provide insights to the use and benefits of language learning

strategies. Some of the most influential assessment techniques suggested by Oxford

(1990) are observations, interviews, think-aloud procedures, note-taking, diaries or

journals, and self-report surveys. Chamot et al. (1999) suggest the following activities

for evaluating and expanding learning strategies:

• Class discussions: Teachers can lead class discussions right after students

have practiced one or more learning strategies with a language task (p.117)

• Charts and graphic organizers: Visual representations of information are

helpful ways of expression especially due to the limited language

proficiency.

• Journals and diaries: With minimal direction from teacher, students are

asked to write about their feelings and experiences while learning a

language.

• Learning strategy experiments: Students compare the results of a learning

task with or without the strategy.

• Questionnaires: In order to evaluate learning strategies, students can be

given questionnaires.

• Interviews: Interviews can be conducted individually or in small groups,

both retrospective interviews and think-aloud sessions are useful

approaches.

48

• Stimulated recall: Robbins in Chamot et al. (1999) describes stimulated

recall as a technique that helps students to recall their thinking processes

during a conversational interchange.

• Portfolio assessment: “A portfolio consists of samples of a student’s work

collected on a regular basis throughout the school year” (p.135). This kind

of an alternative assessment has gained much acceptance in the field of

foreign language education.

• Teacher observation notes/self evaluations: Reflective notes kept on a

regular basis can be a valuable data collection tool for self-evaluation.

• Writing samples: Written accounts of learners may help researchers/teachers

to reflect the improvement they make.

• Recording: One invaluable way of observing learning can be video and

audio tapes of oral language production.

• Expanding through discussions: Learners can be led to discuss in what other

situations the strategy might be helpful to the learners. This kind of a

discussion can reinforce their explicit knowledge of the strategy

• Expanding to other language activities: the use of the strategy can be

expanded to other language tasks and skills.

• Expanding to other academic subjects: the teacher should give assignment

so as to encourage the broad transfer of strategies in many different

contexts.

It is important to note that retrospective methods such as questionnaires, discussions

and interviews may fail to reflect accurate information since the students may try to

give answers that they think the teacher would like to hear or they may fail to remember

the details. Therefore, Chamot et al. (1999) suggests using more than one way to collect

data and collecting information on an ongoing basis. Taking into account this fact, this

study has made use of a number of the previously mentioned data collection tools such

as questionnaires, interviews, group discussions, think-aloud protocols (see Section

3.3.2 for details).

49

2.3. Conclusion

This chapter has presented information pertaining to the theoretical framework

of the study. The first part focused on giftedness, the general characteristics of gifted

children, education programs for the gifted as well as making a brief summary of the

issue in terms of its global and national aspects. Information given in this part is

expected to be helpful in understanding the study conducted with learners whose

educational needs are different from the general population.

The second part of this chapter was devoted to the theoretical base for the

instruction these pupils were provided with. Hence, more detailed information regarding

language learning strategies, their advantages in helping learners to become more

independent and successful is introduced. In addition, implementation details of such

training and various data collection tools to evaluate the success are given so as to better

understand the data collected from various data collection tools.

Chapter 3 is devoted to the detailed explanation of the research process,

including the pilot study.

50

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.0. Introduction

This chapter mainly describes the organization of the study by presenting the

methodological considerations and the research procedures. The study was piloted with

34 students in the 2007-2008 education year before it was conducted with 10 students in

the 2009-2010 education year. The main findings and the contribution of the pilot study

to the actual process are reported together with the details about the phases of the study.

The following section introduces what is carried out in the pilot study phase and the

actions taken as a result of the experience gained from the process.

3.1. Pilot Study

Gifted learners use some learning strategies that make them different from

average learners. A number of studies (Scruggs et al., 1985; Lovecky, 2003) have

shown that gifted children are different from their peers in that they spontaneously

employ more elaborate and effective learning strategies and have superior

metacognitive ability. As was mentioned in Chapter 2, in spite of the existence of

numerous studies on how they learn in general, there is lack of empirical research on

how gifted learners actually learn foreign languages. Thus, the main purpose of this

study is to have a thorough understanding of how young gifted learners learn English as

a foreign language and to make their learning even more effective through strategies-

based English instruction. In this regard, the purpose of the study is to identify the

current language learning strategies of gifted learners and extend their repertoire of

learning strategies through a strategies-based English instruction program with a view to

making them more effective language learners.

The preliminary study was conducted as an experimental research design in the

2007-2008 education year with a view to identifying the effect of strategies-based

instruction. Thirty-four gifted pupils were divided into one control group (17 students)

and one experimental group (17 students). The students in the experimental group were

exposed to a strategies-based English instruction for eight weeks while the students in

51

the control group were not instructed in any language learning strategies. The

experimental group was instructed the following language learning strategies through

various activities:

- Planning and Setting Goals

- Prediction

- Selective Attention

-Using Background Knowledge

-Grouping

-Deduction

-Planning Composition

-Speaking Strategies

-Dividing Words into Parts

-Substitution

-Finding Rhymes

-Summarising

During the strategy training process, the researcher collected data systematically

through questionnaires, proficiency tests, audio recordings of think-aloud protocols,

students’ written accounts, and group discussions.

The questionnaires conducted at the beginning of the study aimed at identifying

learners’ needs and attitudes towards language learning. The attitudes of learners

towards learning English were identified using the questionnaire adapted from Gregory

(1996) (see Appendix 1), and the English background questionnaire aiming to know

learners better in terms of their English background was adapted from Chamot et al.

(1999) (see Appendix 2). The students were also administered the Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (SILL), Version for Speakers of Other Languages (Oxford,

1990) (see Appendix 3). The purpose of the inventory was to find out the language

learning strategies gifted learners had already been using. The inventory was translated

into Turkish and then translated back into English by a different translator, and the

students responded to questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1: never, 2: rarely, 3:

sometimes, 4: usually, and 5: always). The data obtained from this inventory were

analysed using SPSS and identified the students’ current strategy use.

52

The students were then administered a proficiency test so as to find out whether

strategies-based English instruction would have effects on their English proficiency

levels. The tests used in the study were Cambridge Young Learners English Starter and

Movers and they consisted of six parts (see Appendix 4): Starter reading (25 questions),

Starter listening (20 questions), Starter speaking (24 points), Movers reading (40

questions), Movers listening (25 questions), and Movers speaking (24 points). For the

speaking parts of the exam, the participants’ speaking performance was recorded and

evaluated by two researchers, one of whom was not informed about which students

were in the experimental or control group. Both evaluators used PALS (Performance

Assessment for Language Students) rubric to evaluate the speaking performance of the

students (see Appendix 5). Test scores of both groups were analyzed in SPSS and the

results were detected to be close to each other before the experimental group students

were exposed to a strategies-based instruction. The same proficiency test was

administered as a post-test after the strategies-based instruction which lasted eight

weeks. The data collected from the proficiency exam were analyzed using SPSS.

In week-by-week written accounts, the students in the experimental group were

asked about their opinions pertaining to the strategies-based instruction. These

questionnaires required the pupils to describe what they did in the activity, whether the

strategy taught was helpful, in what specific ways the strategy helped them, where else

they can use the strategy, and whether they were taught the strategy before. They were

free to write positive or negative ideas so as to gain a clear picture of how they view this

process. In addition to these week-by-week questionnaires, the students were given an

open ended questionnaire on their ideas about strategy training when the strategy

training was over. The collected data were analyzed using qualitative data analysis

techniques.

Think-aloud protocols were also used in collecting data. In the later phases of

the study, the students in the experimental and control group were asked to work on

four tasks requiring them to use reading, writing and speaking skills. The participants

verbalized their thoughts as they were trying to achieve the tasks. Their speech while

working on these tasks was recorded for analysis. During this activity the students were

asked such questions as “Why did you stop?”, “What are you thinking now?”, “What

53

are you planning to do?”, “Why do you think you had difficulty?” Questions adapted

from Oxford (1990) and Chamot et al. (1999) guided the way think-aloud protocols

were conducted and provided data from the students’ perspectives.

At the end of the strategy training, both the experimental and the control group

were involved in group discussions aiming to have a better view of their ideas about

learning English and their ways of handling the difficulties they come across. The group

discussions lasted about half an hour and the discussions were recorded for analysis (see

Appendix 11 for a sample group discussion).

The data collection tools used in the pilot study provided invaluable data about

the processes gifted learners were going through in their foreign language learning. The

results obtained from the pilot study and their contributions to the main study are

summarized below.

3.1.1. Findings and Conclusions of the Pilot Study

The first question that guided the pilot study was how gifted children viewed

learning English. It was found that all the pupils participating in the study had positive

attitudes towards learning English. They all indicated that they found English fun and

not very difficult to learn. The participants were also found to be self-motivated and not

prejudiced against other cultures. They reported that they would like to meet children of

their age from other countries. More importantly, they seemed to be aware of the

importance of learning a foreign language. They all believe that learning English now

will be useful to them later.

Therefore, data obtained from the attitudes questionnaire showed that gifted

learners had positive attitudes towards learning English in general. Hence, it can be

concluded that teaching English to young, gifted learners means knowing working with

very special pupils who enjoy learning and who are ready to take responsibility for their

own learning. Besides, results obtained from the language learning strategies inventory

(SILL) displayed that many participants were aware of some of the strategies and

utilized them in their lives from time to time. However, they were not aware of or

utilize many strategies that would be helpful in their language learning process. Data

54

obtained from other data collection tools, such as written accounts, discussions, and

interviews supported this finding. All of the participants stated that they had never been

instructed any of the language learning strategies they were introduced.

Next, the data obtained from the proficiency tests both at the beginning and at

the end of the study were analysed. Although the proficiency test scores of the groups

were very close to each other in the pre-test, post-test results revealed that the

experimental group students scored higher than the control group and they performed

significantly better than they did in the pre-test (p:<0.5) (see Appendix 9). The

proficiency test scores showed that students who were instructed language learning

strategies were more successful than the ones who were not. Although the difference

between the scores was not statistically significant, mean scores of the experimental

group were higher in all skills except for Movers reading. The students in the

experimental group scored in the speaking part of the exam better than the students in

the control group (means: Experimental Starter Reading: 22,29, Control Starter

Reading: 21,17; Experimental Starter Listening: 18,29, Control Starter Listening: 17,82;

Experimental Starter Speaking: 18,05, Control Starter Speaking: 14,58; Experimental

Movers Speaking: 14,82, Control Movers Speaking: 12,17; Experimental Movers

Reading: 24,23, Control Movers Reading: 24,82). Hence, the instructed language

learning strategies can be seen to have contributed to the participants’ language

proficiency.

One of the research questions that guided the study was whether strategies-based

instruction would produce any changes in students’ initial strategy use. Therefore, the

participants were administered the SILL at the end of the training. Although the learners

seemed to become aware of the strategies and there was an increase in the frequency of

the instructed strategies, the difference was not statistically significant. Some plausible

explanations for this would be a) the strategy training lasted only eight weeks, which

limited the number of strategies taught, b) some of the strategies instructed did not

overlap with the ones in the inventory, c) responses to the questions had five items

between always and never, which made the analysis of the difference harder.

The final research question that guided the study was related to the participants’

perceptions of strategies-based instruction. Written accounts regarding the strategy

55

training provided insights to explore the participants’ perceptions concerning the

training they received. Thus, the students in the experimental group were asked to write

the advantages and disadvantages of the training. None of the pupils who answered this

question declared any negative statements. Their responses indicated that they generally

had positive ideas about the training they were provided. All the students stated that the

strategy training was very “helpful” not only for the activities at BILSEM but also for

the ones at their schools. Many students reported that learning became “easier” and

“quicker” thanks to the strategies instructed. Similarly, many other students said they

“could understand better” when they used the strategies they learnt. Another group of

students stated that they found the strategies “time-saving” and that to them, instructing

language learning strategies was “a very good idea”. One of the students stated that

after learning the strategies, she realized once more that the only things they did in

English classes at school were “repeating” and “memorizing”. One of the participants

pointed out that the strategies-based instruction is so useful that any program should

have this kind of instruction that makes learning “more effective” and “easier”. He also

stated that he would like to increase the number of strategies learnt in one lesson so that

he can learn more strategies. For another student, strategy training helped him to be

“good at the skills which are usually neglected at school”. He said he became more self-

confident in listening and speaking activities after strategy training. Group discussions

and think-aloud protocols supported the data gathered from the written accounts.

To summarize, all the data collection tools aiming to discover the participants’

perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the strategy training showed that gifted

learners look for the ways to make their learning quicker, easier, more effective and

more enjoyable. By helping students use their potential to transfer their knowledge of

strategies to any learning event, strategies-based instruction was found to provide a

great opportunity of creating such a learning atmosphere to young, gifted learners.

The pilot study was conducted in the 2007-2008 education year and planned to

be carried out in a more organized way in the 2009-2010 education year. Positive

effects of the training were evident. Given the increase in the test scores and the

participants’ perceptions, extending the training into a longer period would be a wise

decision. Thus, a more detailed strategies-based teaching program with more strategies

to be instructed was planned for the main study.

56

However, the number of students who could attend the English Language

program was only ten in the 2009-2010 education year. Thus, it was not possible to

create two groups to identify the effect of the strategy training. Having identified the

effectiveness of such training, it was wise to extend the duration of the training and to

evaluate several factors involved in the process. Hence, the main study was designed

and implemented with ten participants as an action research. However, with the

experience gained from the pilot study, the main study included some changes which

are presented as follows:

Duration of the Strategies-based Instruction: The strategies-based instruction

lasted for eight weeks in the pilot study, whereas it proceeded for seven months in the

main study.

Number of Strategies Instructed: The participants were instructed 12 strategies

during the pilot study, and these strategies were limited to the activities focusing on

only one skill. As for the main study, the students were taught 16 strategies and most of

them were transferred into other activities and skills. For instance, a strategy which was

originally instructed through a writing activity was also used in a speaking activity, in a

separate lesson hour. Hence, the participants were exposed to more strategies that were

used in different ways.

Data Collection Tools: In the pilot study, attitudes of the participants were

identified using an attitudes questionnaire developed by Gregory (1996). In the main

study, the participants were also administered a more detailed questionnaire which

explored both their beliefs and attitudes regarding language learning. BALLI (Beliefs

about Language Learning Inventory) used in the main study was developed by Horwitz

(1988).

Week-by-week questionnaires regarding the use of language learning strategies

were not favored by the students during the pilot study. Some of them even indicated

that the most difficult part of the activities were the questionnaires that they had to fill

out each week. Thus, in the main study, the participants’ perceptions regarding the

strategies-based instruction were elicited through interviews and group discussions

rather than the questionnaires administered each week.

57

Because the duration of the strategies-based instruction was longer in the main

study, there was more time to conduct more think-aloud protocols which provided

invaluable data in relation to the way gifted learners handle language tasks. In the pilot

study, this part of the data collection tool was limited to a few students chosen

randomly.

Finally, considering that many participants found remembering the names of the

strategies hard, the main study provided a corner for the learners in the classroom. Thus,

the participants could see the names of the strategies as well as the visual reminders.

This way, even if they could not remember the name of the strategies, the participants

remembered how the language learning strategies were used and for what purposes.

Considering the information pertaining to the pilot study, it can be concluded that it

guided the main study and established the framework for strategies-based instruction.

The following sections focus on the methodological considerations of the main study.

3.2. Research Design

Kurt Lewin, often cited as the originator of action research (McKernan, 1991),

used the methodology in his work with people affected by post-war social problems. In

the late 60s and 70s, educational research adopted action research approaches with the

‘teacher- researcher’ movement in the secondary education sector. Similarly, Dick

(2002) defines action research as a flexible spiral process which allows action (change,

improvement) and research (understanding, knowledge) to be achieved at the same

time. The understanding allows more informed change and at the same time is informed

by that change.

The notion of action research is that the practicing classroom teacher, as the

most effective person to identify problems and to find solutions, can be brought into the

center with the steps of the action research cycle. As put forward by Koshy (2010),

Action research supports practitioners to seek ways in which they can

provide good quality education by transforming the quality of teaching-

related activities, thereby enhancing students’ learning (p.1).

58

Action research is participatory and cyclical in nature, and the reflections of the

previous cycle inform the plan of the next cycle (see Figure 3.1). Zuber & Skerrit

(1992) identify four major phases in the action research cycle as planning, acting,

observing and reflecting. Figure 3.1 (adapted from Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)

displays the cyclical nature of action research.

Figure 3.1. Action Research Cycle

Similar to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), a number of researchers, such as

Elliott (1991) and Dick (2002), have highlighted the cyclical or spiral nature of action

research. The number of stages in the cycle may vary but can be generally summarised

as follows: Planà DoàReview. Figure 3.1 above demonstrates a simple, typical action

research cycle and summarises these steps as plan, act, observe, and reflect. Figure 3.2

illustrates the cyclical nature of the present study.

59

Figure 3.2. Action Research Cycle of the Study

Dick (2002) states that greater understanding is developed through the

continuous refining of methods, data and interpretation during the cyclical progress. In a

similar line of thought, Elliot (1991) highlights that the fundamental aim of action

research is to improve practice rather than produce knowledge.

This study adopted the cyclical nature of action research in order to improve the

English language proficiency of gifted learners. Hence, the planning, acting, observing,

and reflecting phases of the action research were applied to the strategies-based

language instruction used in this study. To illustrate, difficulties faced by the learners

were identified through questionnaires, interviews, group discussions and activities that

were carried out. These activities helped students to be involved in the interpretation of

these difficulties by commenting on the reasons and possible solutions. Later, once they

were introduced to the strategies and carried out the activities accordingly, both the

researcher and the learners evaluated their success as well as the effectiveness of the

strategies. Actions to be taken in the future were planned with the guidance of the

information obtained in the previous stages.

60

The following sections present information in relation to details, such as the

participants of the study, research questions, and data collection procedure.

3.2.1 Participants

The participants of the preliminary study were 34 pupils, 15 girls and 19 boys,

who were enrolled in Adana Science and Arts Center (BILSEM). The students, who

were identified as gifted as a result of the test scores they got from The Wechsler

Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R) were attending Adana Science and Arts

Center and receiving English lesson one hour per week. All of the students, whose ages

ranged from 11 to 13, were enrolled in state schools.

The participants of the main study conducted a year later than the preliminary

study were 10 students attending the same center. Similar to the age range of the pilot

study, the participants’ ages ranged from 11 to 13. Instead of the learners’ real names,

the following pseudo names were used in the presentation of the data: Bartu, Bertan,

Sait, Nilgün, Dila, Beril, Ercan, Gizem, Ayhan, and Oğuz.

Table 3.1

Participants of the Study EXPERIENCE IN ENGLISH

Name Gender Age

Grade and Weekly

hours of English

Instruction at

School

Reveiving

Private Tutorials

for Level

Determination

Exam (SBS)

Having

People

Available to

Practice

English

Watching

English TV

programs/

Listening to

English songs

Bartu M 13 7th -4 hours Yes No Yes

Bertan M 12 6th -3 hours Yes Yes No

Sait M 11 6th -4 hours Yes No No

Nilgün F 13 7th -4 hours Yes No No

Dila F 12 6th -4 hours Yes Yes No

Beril F 12 6th -4 hours Yes Yes Yes

Ercan M 12 6th -4 hours Yes No Yes

Gizem F 13 7th -4 hours Yes No No

Ayhan M 13 7th -4 hours No No No

Oğuz M 13 7th -4 hours Yes No No

61

3.2.2. Research Questions

The following questions guided the study with a view to understanding the second

language learning processes of gifted students and exploring the role of strategies-based

language instruction in teaching English to young gifted learners:






4. Does strategies-based English instruction have any effects on gifted learners’

English proficiency?


3.3. Data Collection Procedure

The data were collected in a systematic way and triangulated through various

data collection tools. Triangulation is a powerful way of strengthening research through

the combination of various methods and measures. The following table presents a

summary of the data collection procedure.

62

Table 3.2

Data Collection Procedure Purpose Data Collection Tools Data

Analysis

Data Acquired

Identifying the

Participants’ Attitudes

towards learning

English

Attitudes & English Background

Questionnaire (also piloted)

BALLI (not piloted)

Content

Analysis

The participants’ perceptions

about Learning English

Identifying the

Language Learning

Strategies used by the

Participants

SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language

Learning)

(also piloted)

SPSS

Language Learning

Strategies already Utilized by

the Participants

Identifying the

Participants’ Initial

Language Proficiency

Young Learners Proficiency Exam

PALS (Voice records)

(also piloted)

SPSS and

Content

Analysis

The Participants’ Initial

Language Performance

Exploring the

Participants’ needs in

Learning English and

Identifying Language

Learning Strategies to

be Instructed

Proficiency Exam and Questionnaires

SPSS and

Content

Analysis

Participants’ current

Language Level, Attitudes

towards Learning English,

and their Needs/Goals in

Learning English

Exposing Participants to

a Strategies-based

Language Instruction

Activities and Worksheets, Think-aloud

Protocols, Group Discussions

(also piloted)

Content

Analysis

The Participants’

Performance in Tasks

Identifying the

Participants’ Language

Proficiency after the

Strategies-based

Instruction

Young Learners Proficiency Exam

PALS (voice records)

(also piloted)

SPSS

The Participants’ Final

Performance after the

Strategies-based Instruction

was over

Identifying the

Participants’

Perceptions about the

Effectiveness of

Strategies-based

Instruction

Questionnaires, Group Discussions,

Written Accounts, Interviews

(also piloted)

Content

Analysis

The Participants’ Perceptions

about the Strategies-based

Language Instruction

63

At the beginning of the study, the participants were administered questionnaires

with a view to collecting data about their English language background and attitudes

towards learning English. The participants were also administered a proficiency test

evaluating four skills. The speaking performance of students was recorded and

evaluated by two researchers respectively. The steps taken before the implementation of

the training aimed at finding more out about the students in terms of their initial

performance in language as well as their perceptions and background about English.

Throughout the process, the students were exposed to strategies-based language

instruction and their awareness was raised through questionnaires and group discussions

in which they evaluated the use and effectiveness of the strategies instructed. They were

also asked in what other situations these strategies could be useful.

In the speaking activities and the think-aloud protocols, the students’ initial

performance was recorded and they were asked to guess the reasons of the difficulties

as well as the possible solutions to their problems. Once they were introduced a strategy

to help them, their performance was rerecorded, this time while they used the strategies

instructed. At the end of the seven-month strategies-based instruction, the participants

were given a proficiency test. They were also asked their opinions regarding the

strategies-based instruction through final interviews conducted after the strategies-based

instruction was over. Table 3.3 shows the details of the language learning strategies

instructed.

64

Table 3.3

Language Learning Strategies Instructed Strategies Instructed Skills Activity Data Collection Tools

Planning Writing Personal Language Goals &

Self Assessment

Group Discussion

Prediction Listening, Reading,

Speaking

Bug’s Café – Books (I can

swim)

Strategy Learning

Questionnaire

Selective Attention Listening, Speaking,

Writing

Bug’s Café Strategy Learning

Questionnaire

Setting Goals Reading, Writing The Dentist, Sally’s Bike,

Gorillas

Group Discussion

Grouping Writing, Vocabulary

Learning

Worksheets (Classroom

Items, Furniture)

Group Discussion

Deduction Reading Sally’s Bike, Dentist,

Gorillas

Strategy Learning

Questionnaire

Planning Composition Writing Writing about favourite

people

Strategy Learning

Questionnaire

Dividing Words into Parts Speaking, Writing Worksheets: Compound

Nouns

Strategy Learning

Questionnaire

Substitution Speaking, Writing Talking about pictures,

Writing a composition

Group Discussion

Finding Rhymes Speaking, Writing Worksheets: Easy Rhymes,

Rhyming Words

Group Discussion

Taking Notes Listening, Writing,

Speaking

Fill in the blanks in World

Cultures Party

Audio Recording, Group

Discussion

Taking Notes Listening, Speaking Picture Game Audio Recording, Strategy

Learning Questionnaire

Organizational Planning

for Speaking

Speaking Note-taking Worksheet Audio Recording, Group

Discussion

Describing Things Speaking Description Game Audio Recording, Group

Discussion

Talking about Pictures Speaking Colorful pictures and

Posters

Audio Recording, Group

Discussion

Using Background

Knowledge

Reading, Writing Worksheets, answers in

short phrases

Group Discussion

Think-aloud Protocols Speaking, Reading,

Writing

Pictures and sample

activities

Group Discussion,

Interview

65

3.3.1. Researcher’s Role

The researcher adopted the role of teacher-as-researcher in line with the

principles of Action Research. Action research puts the practicing classroom teacher

into the center with the steps of the action research cycle, since it perceives teachers as

the most effective person to identify problems and to find solutions. As stated by

Koshy (2010), “action research supports practitioners to seek ways in which they can

provide good quality education by transforming the quality of teaching-related

activities” (p.1).

All of the students that were provided strategies-based language instruction were

taught by the researcher. Although the teacher-researcher instructed the participants

throughout the strategies-based instruction process and conducted the present study, she

met the participants only for one hour a week. This limited time allocated for English

lessons had to be used effectively. Thus, each week, the participants were instructed

language learning strategies through various activities. The researcher did not meet the

participants at any other time, nor were they involved in any conversations or activities

related to the strategies-based instruction process apart from the lesson hour allocated to

English. The participants were reminded that the training they were receiving was not a

test but an alternative learning option for gifted learners and their perceptions regarding

the role of such instruction in learning was of great value. They were assured that they

were not being evaluated because of the answers they gave and their comments would

include both positive and negative outcomes of the strategies-based instruction they

were provided with.

Due to the fact that strategy learning is a conscious process (Oxford, 1990), the

participants were informed about the notion and advantages of strategies-based

instruction. This may be interpreted as introducing the risk of eliciting only positive

sides of such instruction from the participants’ points of view. Following Chamot et al.

(1999), students may try to give answers that they think the teacher would like to hear

or they may fail to remember the details. To eliminate such risk, the participants’

perceptions about the process were elicited through several data collection tools (e.g.

written accounts, interviews, proficiency exams, think-aloud protocols, inventories, and

the English background questionnaire). Hence, the data collected from the participants

were triangulated so as to enhance reliability and consistency in the results.

66

3.3.2 Data Collection Tools

The data were gathered through questionnaires, proficiency tests, audio

recordings of think-aloud protocols, students’ written accounts, group discussions, and

interviews.

Questionnaires: Many factors affect the choice of strategies. Some examples of

this are degree of awareness, state of learning, task requirements, teacher expectation,

age, sex, nationality, general learning style, personality traits, motivation level, and

purpose for learning the target language (Oxford, 1990). Thus, the students were

submitted two questionnaires at the beginning of the study to identify their English

background (see Appendix 2) and attitudes towards learning English (see Appendix 1).

The questionnaire aiming to find out the attitudes of the children towards learning

English was adapted from Gregory (1996), and the English background questionnaire

aiming to know learners better in terms of their English background was adapted from

Chamot et al. (1999).

Differing from the pilot study, the participants were submitted the 34-item

BALLI (Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory) (Horwitz, 1988) in which they

commented on the following areas: a) foreign language aptitude; b) the difficulty of

language learning; c) the nature of language learning; d) learning and communication

strategies; and, e) motivation and expectations. They commented on the statements by

writing “yes” “no” or not “not sure” (See Appendix 6).

The questionnaires were translated into the native language of the participants by

two different researchers and translated back into English.

Proficiency Test: The students were given a proficiency test at the beginning of

the study to find out whether strategies-based English instruction would have effects on

the proficiency levels of the students. The same proficiency test was administered as a

post-test after the strategy instruction. The proficiency exam used in the study was

Cambridge Young Learners English Starter and Movers and it consisted of 6 parts:

starter reading/writing (25 questions), starter listening (20 questions), starter speaking

(24 points), movers reading/writing (40 questions), movers listening (25 questions), and

67

movers speaking (24 points) (See Appendix 4). The proficiency test evaluates reading,

writing, listening and speaking skills rather than only grammar.

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): SILL, Version for Speakers

of Other Languages Learning English was conducted to identify the language learning

strategies the gifted learners have already been using. The inventory was translated into

Turkish and then translated back into English by a different translator. The inventory

was developed by Oxford in 1990 (see Appendix 3), and the students responded on a 5-

point Likert scale (1: never, 2: rarely, 3: sometimes, 4: usually, and 5: always). The data

obtained from this inventory identified the participants’ current strategy use. SILL is the

most widely used inventory in second language strategy research. Oxford & Burry-

Stock (1995) report successful use of SILL in gathering data regarding language

learning strategies. Oxford (1990) points out that reported reliabilities of the scale range

from .86 to .91.

Audio Recordings of think-aloud protocols: The students were presented

language learning strategies during the strategy training phase. In the later phases of the

study, they were asked to work on some language tasks focusing on the speaking skills.

The students verbalized their thoughts as they were trying to achieve the tasks. Their

speech was recorded for analysis. Questions adapted from Oxford (1990), and Chamot

et al. (1999) guided the interviews and provided valuable data from the participants’

perspectives.

Students’ Written Accounts: The participants were asked to write about their

feelings and ideas about learning language learning strategies. They were free to write

positive or negative ideas to gain a clearer picture of how they view this process. The

participants wrote whether the strategies they learnt were helpful, how they gained from

the strategies, and whether they had learnt any of the strategies before. Data gathered

from these written accounts were analyzed using content analysis techniques and

presented in Chapter 4. At the end of the strategies-based instruction, the participants

were administered an open-ended questionnaire on their ideas about strategies-based

instruction.

68

Group Discussions: At the end of the strategies-based instruction, the

participants were involved in group discussions that aimed to have a better view of their

ideas pertaining to learning English and their ways of handling the difficulties they

came across. The group discussions aiming to raise awareness about the process were

also tape-recorded (see Appendix 11 for a sample group discussion).

Researcher’s Field Notes: The data regarding the strategies-based language

instruction were recorded and analyzed weekly. In this process, the researcher took

some field notes pertaining to her observations during the activities based on language

learning strategies.

Post-tests: All the participants were administered the SILL and Cambridge

Young Learners English Starter and Movers test at the end of the study with a view to

evaluating the role of strategy training in teaching English to gifted learners. The

speaking part of this exam was evaluated by two researchers using a rubric (see PALS

in Appendix 5).

Interviews: At the end of the strategy training, the participants were conducted

a final interview in which they evaluated the strategy instruction process. In the

interviews, which were held in the participants’ native language, the students were

asked the following questions and asked their comments apart from the questions asked:

- Did you know anything about Language Learning Strategies before being

trained on them systematically at BILSEM?

- How would you describe “language learning strategies”?

- Which strategy was most helpful for you?

-What are the advantages and disadvantages of such training?

- Would you like to learn more Language Learning Strategies in the future?

The data collection tools used in the study provided invaluable data pertaining to

the processes gifted learners go through in their foreign language learning.

69

3.4. Data Analysis

At the beginning of the training, the students were given a proficiency exam and

English Background Questionnaire. The proficiency exam results were analyzed in

SPSS (paired-samples t-test) and the data from the questionnaires and inventories were

analyzed using both SPSS (descriptive statistics) and content analysis techniques for the

open-ended questions. Two different researchers using the PALS (Performance

Assessment for Language Students) rubric, through which they evaluated the

participants’ speech in terms of the task completion, comprehensibility, fluency,

pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, analyzed the speaking part of the proficiency

exam.

The data collected from different data collection tools were analyzed regularly

and systematically. The recordings of the speaking performance and the questionnaire

results regarding the effectiveness of the strategies were noted weekly by the researcher.

Transcriptions of the think-aloud protocols were analyzed to take the necessary action

in the training phase. The results were discussed in group discussion sessions, during

which the participants commented on the reasons of problematic areas and suggested

possible solutions. Their performance was reevaluated after they carried out the activity

with the help of the strategies instructed.

In their written accounts, the students provided more specific explanations of the

tasks, which offered a more comprehensive understanding of the use and effectiveness

of the strategies. The participants commented on and gave specific examples of how the

strategies helped them exactly in carrying out the activities, in what other situations they

could use the strategies they have learnt, and whether they had been taught that the

things instructed were language learning strategies. Their responses were analyzed

using content analysis methods.

At the end of the seven-month strategy training, the participants were given a

final, semi-structured interview. They were asked to describe the language learning

strategies in general, whether they found the training useful, advantages and

disadvantages of the training, and how they could transfer the strategies into other areas

of learning. Data gathered from the interviews were analyzed using codes and themes

from the participants’ responses having common points. Some other data considered to

70

have importance and uniqueness were presented individually together with the names of

the participants from whom they were obtained.

The data obtained from the interviews were transcribed and the interrelated

codes making meaningful units were combined together. In order to enhance the

reliability of the coding, the data were coded by two researchers respectively and the

coherence was found .93.

3.5. Conclusion

This chapter has presented the methodological considerations of the study. The

study had been piloted with 34 students in an experimental research design before it was

conducted with ten students for the main study. Therefore, the first sections of this

chapter introduced the experience gained from the pilot study in a detailed way while

the following sections focused on the methodological considerations of the main study.

The following chapter presents the findings obtained through the various data

collection tools used in the strategies-based language instruction process.

71

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

4.0. Introduction

Evaluating the role of strategies-based instruction in a language program

requires the utilization of various data collection tools, as strategy use is not easy to

detect. Therefore, this chapter presents the findings of the questionnaires, proficiency

tests, SILL (Oxford, 1990), audio recordings of think-aloud protocols, students’ written

accounts, group discussions, and interviews. The presentation of the findings was

organized based on the research questions given below:









4.1. Research Question 1: What are the attitudes of gifted learners towards

learning English?

The data regarding the attitudes of the participants towards English and learning

English were acquired through the Attitudes Questionnaire developed by Gregory

(1996). The participants were required to comment on the statements given by writing

“yes” or “no”. Table 4.1 demonstrates the participants’ attitudes towards English.

,

72

Table 4.1

Attitudes towards English

Items Yes No

N % N %

I do not like English 0 0 10 100

English may be useful to me later 10 100 0 0

I like English 10 100 0 0

English is hard 2 20 8 80

I would like to learn other languages. 10 100 0 0

English is usually boring. 1 10 9 99

As seen in Table 4.1, all the students participating in the study reported that they

like English (I like English- yes: 100%; I do not like English- no: 100%), and they have

positive attitudes towards learning languages other than English since they agree with

the statement that they would like to learn languages other than English (yes: 100%).

While the majority (80%) finds English easy, 20% of the participants think that English

is hard. Although one pupil thinks that English can be boring depending on the learning

conditions provided, all the participants believe that English may be useful for them

later (yes: 100%). To conclude, the results of the attitudes towards English

questionnaire indicate that the participants attending Adana Science and Arts Center not

only have positive attitudes towards English but also seem to be aware of the

importance of learning a foreign language, in this case English.

Table 4.2 presents results regarding the participants’ attitudes towards learning

English.

73

Table 4.2

Attitudes towards Learning English

Items Yes No

N % N %

Learning English is a waste of time. 0 0 10 100

English lessons are fun. 10 100 0 0

I’m no good at English. 2 20 8 80

I would like to find out more about English. 10 100 0 0

I think my parents are pleased that I’m learning English. 10 100 0 0

I think everyone should learn English at primary school. 10 100 0 0

I think that doing English now will help me in secondary school. 10 100 0 0

I’m glad I’m learning English. 10 100 0 0

Parallel to the results displayed in Table 4.1, all of the students disagree with the

idea that learning English is a waste of time (no: 100%). Responses to the other

questions such as “I would like to find more about English” (yes: 100%), “I think

everyone should learn English at primary school” (yes: 100%) and “I think that doing

English now will help me in secondary school” (yes: 100%) are all indicators of the

importance these children attach to learning English. Two of the participants think that

they are no good at English. Next to their responses, these students wrote that “there is

a lot to learn about English, my knowledge is so little”, which shows their awareness of

the fact that learning a language is not limited to success at school. The responses given

in this category correlate with the findings in the previous category which aimed to

explore their attitudes towards English. Hence, it is indicated that the participants had

developed positive attitudes towards learning English in general. Table 4.3 displays the

participants’ attitudes towards their English teacher and the way they learn English.

Table 4.3

Attitudes towards English Teacher and Method

Items Yes No

N % N %

I don’t like the way we learn English. 2 20 8 80

I like my English teacher. 10 100 0 0

74

The items presented in Table 4.3 deal with the methodological considerations

about learning English. Two of the participants do not seem to be happy about the way

they learn English at school, as they pointed out that they just memorize or write down

new words several times. Parallel to their positive attitudes towards English, all the

students agree with the statement that they like their English teachers. Besides, the

majority of them think that the way they learn English is good enough, as 80% disagree

with the statement that they do not like the way they learn English.

The data collected from the Attitudes Questionnaire (see Appendix 1) clearly

show that the participants generally have positive attitudes towards learning English.

Having acquired the data regarding their feelings, the study aimed to explore more in-

depth data pertaining to the gifted learners’ beliefs about language learning. The data

were collected through BALLI (see Appendix 6) developed by Horwitz (1988). The

students responded the 34-item inventory by writing yes, no, or not sure.

Beliefs about language learning are believed to affect attitudes towards and

motivation in learning English. The results of the BALLI questionnaire are presented

below under the headings Language Aptitude, Difficulty of Language Learning, The

Nature of Language Learning, Learning and Communication Strategies, and Motivation

and Expectations. Table 4.4 presents findings in relation to language aptitude.

75

Table 4.4

Language Aptitude

Items : Language Aptitude Yes No Not

sure

N % N % N %

It is easier for children than adults to learn a second language. 9 90 1 10 0 0

Some people have a special ability for learning a foreign

language.

5 50 5 50 0 0

People in my country are very good at learning second

languages.

1 10 9 90 0 0

It’s easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language

to learn another one.

8 80 2 20 0 0

People who are good at mathematics or science are not good at

learning foreign languages.

1 10 9 90 0 0

I have a special ability for learning foreign languages. 1 10 7 70 2 20

Women are better than men at learning foreign languages. 2 20 8 80 0 0

People who speak more than one language are very intelligent. 1 10 7 70 2 20

Everyone can learn to speak a second language. 10 100 0 0 0 0

The participants think that young learners are better language learners, since

90% of them agree with the statement that “it is easier for children than adults to learn a

second language”. However, half of them stated that they do not think that some people

have a special ability for learning a foreign language. In addition, the participants were

asked whether they agree with the idea that people in their country are very good at

learning languages. Almost all of the participants (90%) stated that they do not find the

people in their country good language learners. Findings regarding the importance given

to English by these pupils make it clear that they find learning English essential.

However, they do not find language teaching in our country effective enough.

Another question aims at finding out the knowledge of any other language and

its effect on learning English. Although 80% of the participants think that people who

already speak a foreign language learn another one more easily, only ten percent of

them believe that people speaking two languages are very intelligent (yes: 10%, no:

70%, not sure: 20%). Besides, most of the participants think that there is no relationship

76

between gender (women are better than men at learning foreign languages: yes: 20%;

no: 80%) or being good at mathematics or science and learning foreign languages (yes:

10%, no: 90%). Results show that the participants perceive language learning as

something that can be learned by everyone (yes: 100%) and a vast majority disagree

with the statement that they have a special ability for learning foreign languages (no:

90%).

The second part of the BALLI questionnaire deals with the ideas related to the

difficulty of language learning. Table 4.5 displays the participants’ views regarding the

difficulty of language learning.

Table 4.5

Difficulty of Language Learning

Items : Difficulty of Language Learning Yes No Not

sure

N % N % N %

Some languages are easier than others. 8 80 2 20 0 0

It is easier to speak than understand a foreign language. 2 20 7 70 1 10

It is easier to read than to write a foreign language. 6 60 3 30 1 10

If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long

would it take them to speak it very well?

Less than one year four pupils

1 to 2 years four pupils

3 to 5 years two pupils

Eighty percent of the participants think that some languages are easier than

others are. As to the four skills and the difficulty of learning these skills, 70% of the

participants disagree that it is easier to speak than understand a foreign language while

60% believe that reading is easier than writing. When they were asked if someone

allocated one hour a day for studying a foreign language, only 20% think that it will

take as long as 3 to 5 years to learn to speak well; others believe it will take less to learn

a foreign language (less than one year: 40%; 1-2 years: 40%).

77

Table 4.6 displays findings about the participants’ beliefs pertaining to the

nature of language learning.

Table 4.6

The Nature of Language Learning

Items : The Nature of Language Learning Yes No Not

sure

N % N % N %

It is necessary to learn about English-speaking cultures to speak

English

6 60 3 30 1 10

It is best to learn English in an English-speaking country 10 100 0 0 0 0

The most important part of learning a foreign language is

learning new words

8 80 2 20 0 0


learning grammar

7 70 3 30 0 0

Learning a foreign language is different than learning other

academic subjects

10 100 0 0 0 0


learning to translate from my own language

8 80 2 20 0 0

Although all of the participants agree that learning English in an English-

speaking country is the best way (yes: 100%), nearly half of the students (40 %) do not

find learning about the culture of the language necessary. All of them seem to agree

with the idea that they would be able to learn English better in an English-speaking

country (yes: 100%). Another item all the participants agree with is the statement that

learning a foreign language is different than learning other academic subjects (yes: 100

%). When asked about the most important part of learning a foreign language, the

priority with 80% is learning vocabulary, while 70% think that grammar is the most

important part in learning a foreign language. Besides, 80% of them give importance to

being able to translate.

Table 4.7 demonstrates findings in relation to learning and communication

strategies.

78

Table 4.7

Learning and Communication Strategies

Items: Learning and Communication Strategies Yes No Not

sure

N % N % N %

It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation. 9 90 1 10 0 0

You shouldn’t say anything in English until you say it correctly. 5 50 3 30 2 20

It’s OK to guess if you don’t know a word in English. 8 80 2 20 0 0

I enjoy practicing English with native speakers. 7 70 2 20 1 10

It is important to repeat and practice a lot. 10 100 0 0 0 0

I feel shy speaking English with other people. 6 60 4 40 0 0

If beginning students are allowed to make mistakes in English it

will be difficult for them to speak correctly later on.

8 80 2 20 0 0

It is important to practice with cassettes/tapes, or CD Roms. 8 80 2 20 0 0

Nearly all of the participants (90%) attach importance to speaking English with

an excellent pronunciation and although 20% cannot be sure, half of them (50%)

believe that one should not utter anything in English until they can say it correctly. This

finding indicates gifted learners’ perfectionist characteristic. They would like to be

proficient users of the language they are learning. This characteristic was discussed in

Chapter II (see Section 2.1.4)

As shown in Table 4.7, all of the participants (100%) seem to be aware of the

significance of repeating and practicing a lot and 80% find practicing with

cassettes/tapes, or CDs essential. Although 70% of the participants state that they like

practicing with native speakers, 60% report that they feel shy to speak English with

other people. Finally, 80% of the students participating in the study do not mind

guessing when they do not know the meaning of a word in English and believe that it is

difficult to correct their speaking later on if they are allowed to make mistakes at the

beginning. This perception is correlated with gifted learners’ perfectionist characteristic

which was mentioned in Section 2.1.4 of Chapter 2.

79

Having identified the gifted learners’ beliefs pertaining to learning and

communication strategies, the following questions presented in Table 4.8 focus on

motivation and expectations about language learning.

Table 4.8

Motivation and Expectations

Items: Motivation and Expectations Yes No Not

sure

N % N % N %

I believe I will learn to speak English very well. 7 70 0 0 3 30

People in my country believe that it is important to speak a

foreign language.

6 60 3 30 1 10

I would like to learn English so that I can get to know people

living in other countries better.

9 90 1 10 0 0

If I learn to speak English very well, I will have better job

opportunities.

10 100 0 0 0 0

I would like to have friends who are native speakers. 10 100 0 0 0 0

Parallel to the results of the attitudes questionnaire in terms of the importance of

learning a foreign language, all of the participants put emphasis on the role of English in

having better job opportunities since they all agree with the idea that they will have

better job opportunities if they learn to speak English very well. However, nearly half of

them do not agree with the idea that people in their country give importance to speaking

a foreign language (no: 30%; not sure: 10%). All of the participants point that they

would like to have friends who are native speakers (yes: 100%), and learn English so

that they can get to know people living in other countries better, but 30% are not sure

whether they will learn to speak English very well.

Results of the BALLI (Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory) show that

the majority of the students participating in the study are motivated and self-confident

about learning English as a foreign language. However, they think that foreign language

education in their country is not satisfactory.

80

The participants seem to be very well aware that speaking a foreign language

brings advantages. They indicate that they can have better job opportunities if they can

learn English well. This finding correlates with the ones obtained from the attitudes

questionnaire in that all of them agree with the statement that English will be useful to

them later. Besides, the participants seem to be aware that age is an important factor in

learning languages since they agree that it is easier for children to learn languages.

Finally, although they believe that a foreign language can be learned by anyone, they

find learning English different from any other subjects they learn.

Apart from the BALLI and Attitudes Questionnaire, the participants were

submitted the English Background Questionnaire with a view to exploring further

information related to the place of English in their lives, their ideas about learning and

teaching events, as well as expectations from the English program they are attending at

BILSEM. The data obtained from the English Background Questionnaire are presented

below.

Of the ten students participating in the study, five of them are 6th graders while

five are 7th graders. However, the groups were not formed depending on the grade level

of the students. At BILSEM, students from diverse grade levels participate in activities

in the same group.

The first question in the English Background Questionnaire investigated the

students’ opportunities of being exposed to English. Nine students reported that they

attend English lessons apart from their regular schools and BILSEM. They also stated

that the courses they were attending aimed at success in multiple choice questions.

Besides, the majority of the students receive English lessons for four hours per week in

their schools. They attend English classes for one hour a week in the English language

program they are attending at BILSEM, and those who also attend private courses are

exposed to English for extra one or two hours (nine students). Those who receive

English classes at a private course reported to do so for achieving in SBS (Level

Determination Exam: an exam administered by the government at the end of each

school year).

Then, the participants were asked whether they have people available to practice

English with and whether they know people to whom they can ask about things they do

not understand in English. Only three pupils (Dila, Gizem, and Beril) stated that they

81

had someone in their lives who could speak English. Their responses included

statements such as “Yes, my mum can speak English”, “My brother is good at English”

or “I have cousins with whom I practice English”. However, 70% of the participants

were found to have no one to ask about or to practice English.

The participants were also asked how they deal with unknown vocabulary while

studying English. Their answers focused on two items “I ask someone- my teacher or

my parents” (five pupils) and “I look it up in a dictionary” (five pupils; 2 pupils stated

that they used online dictionaries).

Aiming at exploring the input they had in English, the participants were asked

about the amount of time they spend watching English programs on TV. Almost half of

them reported that they watched English programs for one or two hours per week

(40%). However, there are also students who never hear English on TV (20%). Those

who state that they never watch English programs further explained that they do not

spend time watching TV in general or their television has no English channels. Only

three of the students (Ercan, Bartu and Beril) were found to spend 4-6 hours watching

English programs on TV.

To summarize the findings obtained from the English Background

Questionnaire, it can be concluded that almost all of the students participating in the

study have limited exposure to English. The majority of them learn English only at

school and private courses, solely for the purpose of passing the SBS exam. Besides,

they are not very active listeners of the language since their answers indicated that most

of them do not usually watch English programs on TV or listen to English songs.

Results also demonstrated that a great majority of them have no one to ask about the

things they do not understand in English.

Having presented their attitudes towards English in general and their English

background, Table 4.9 demonstrates the students’ perceived English level.

82

Table 4.9

Cross Tabulation of Perceived English Level According to Grades

Grade Medium Good Very Good Total

6th 1 4 0 5

7th 2 1 2 5

Total 3 5 2 10

Due to their perfectionist characteristic as revealed in the data obtained from the

questionnaires (see Table 4.7 for the importance of speaking English with an excellent

pronunciation), only two students believe that they are “very good” at English. Five

students perceive their English level as good and further explain that they know that

they are better than many of their peers at school, but not good enough when compared

to their aims of competency.

Having identified their perceptions regarding their knowledge of English, the

participants were asked about their perceptions pertaining to their performance in the

four skills. Table 4.10 displays the participants’ responses regarding the skills they think

they are most good at.

Table 4.10

Language Skills At Which the Participants Think They Are Good

I am good at…. f %

No specific skill 1 10

Listening 4 40

Reading 2 20

Writing 1 10

Speaking 2 20

Total 10 100

Almost half of the participants (40%) think that they are good at listening while

one pupil stated that he thought he was generally good at English (Sait), but not at a

specific skill. The other responses for reading, writing, and speaking were respectively

83

20%, 10%, and 20%. As seen in the table, students do not think that they are good at

productive skills (speaking: 20%, writing: 10%).

Table 4.11 presents the skills at which the participants think they are bad.

Table 4.11

Language Skills At Which the Participants Think They Are Bad

I am bad at…. f %

Listening 4 40

Reading 3 30

Writing 1 10

Speaking 2 20

Total 10 100

The skills the pupils think they are bad at reveals interesting results since nearly

half of the students (40%) stated that the skill they think they are bad at is listening

(Beril, Dila, Gizem, Oğuz) while another 40% believed that they are good at listening

(Ayhan, Ercan, Nilgün and Bartu). The other responses for the least successful skills are

as follows: reading (30%), speaking (20%), and writing (10%).

The students were then asked to create a list in which they put the most important

skill in a language program on the top of the list. Their responses are presented in Table

4.12.

Table 4.12 The Participants' Ranking Regarding The Priority of Language Skills

Skills First Second Third Fourth

Listening 1 3 2 1

Speaking 8 2 - -

Reading 1 1 2 3

Writing 0 1 3 3

As shown in Table 4.12, most of the students give importance to listening and

speaking more than they do to reading and writing, as they put these skills in the first or

84

second place. The table also demonstrates that pupils group skills as “listening-

speaking” “and “reading-writing” rather than receptive and productive skills. It is

remarkable to note that 80% of the students think that speaking should be the priority in

any language program.

Next, the participants were asked about the contribution of the SBS exam to

their English success. All the students agree that the exam does not help them succeed

English in general, but due to answering multiple-choice questions, they become

familiar with the vocabulary and grammar structures. They also state that if the English

lesson were not included in the exam, they would not need to study for it regularly.

Hence, their short-term aim is to answer these multiple choice questions and learn

vocabulary. One of the prominent factors that the students believe important is to

improve vocabulary knowledge as revealed in the findings obtained from BALLI and

English Background Questionnaire. Because of this, it can be concluded that SBS exam

contributes to their English learning in some respect.

Following this, the participants were asked about the activities they enjoy doing

while learning. They stated that they would like to have fun while learning. Their

responses included 3D materials, games (more than half of the students), music, audio-

visual activities, and activities related to listening and speaking skills, which are

usually thought to be neglected at school (see Section 4.4 about the participants’ views

on this).

When the participants were asked about the things they would like to learn most,

their responses indicate that the things they want to improve are speaking fluently (70%)

and improving vocabulary (30%). Some students also noted that they would like to

improve their English level as much as possible, thus they would like to learn

everything about English. It is important to note that many students expressed their

desire to be able to make sentences in English.

Finally, the participants were given a list in relation to the ways of learning

English. They were asked to put a tick next to the items they thought appropriate for

them. Table 4.13 presents the results.

As seen in Table 4.13, the items most frequently favored by the students are

speaking with foreigners (90%), learning dialogues (70%), watching (70%), and

85

speaking with classmates (70%). The least favored items, however, are reading without

dictionary (20%) or recording their voice (no pupils).

Table 4.13

The Participants’ Preferences as to the Ways of Learning English

Reading 6 pupils

Making Vocabulary Lists 4 pupils

Watching 7 pupils

Reading with a Dictionary 2 pupils

Learning Songs 3 pupils

Speaking with Foreigners 9 pupils

Translating 5 pupils

Studying in Groups 5 pupils

Listening 4 pupils

Learning Dialogues 7 pupils

Reading without a Dictionary 3 pupils

Reading Magazines 4 pupils

Speaking with classmates 7 pupils

Using a Computer 6 pupils

Recording voice no pupils

Focusing on Pronunciation and Intonation 6 pupils

The first research question aimed to discover the participants’ attitudes towards

learning English, their English background and their perceived language levels. The

data obtained from the attitudes questionnaire show that the majority of the students

participating in the study have positive attitudes towards learning English. Besides, the

English Background Questionnaire revealed that their exposure to English was limited

to their learning environments. Thus, the participants clearly expressed their desire to

improve their English in a real sense. They also want to speak fluently and learn as

much as possible.

The English Background Questionnaire revealed that the participants would like

to focus on improving their speaking skills for their short term goals at BILSEM (80%).

86

All of the participants were found to need the highest possible level to reach their goals

(Level 5 for all skills: 9 pupils; level 4 for all skills: 1 pupil). As for the long term goals,

the participants wanted to learn English very well so as to be able to get a better job

(40%), to speak with native speakers (40%), to read English books for pleasure (10%),

and to go abroad (10%).

As was mentioned before, language learning strategies are affected by many

personal factors. Hence, any program that aims to provide strategy training is suggested

to explore the knowledge and background of learners. The findings presented above

aimed to serve this purpose. McDonough (2005) suggests that students’ current

language learning strategies should also be identified before strategy training. Hence,

the participants were administered the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL), Version for Speakers of Other Languages as pre- and post-test. The inventory

was developed by Oxford (1990) and consisted of 50 items. The difference between the

uses of strategies frequency is presented in the following tables together. The pre-test,

which was administered before the strategies-based instruction started, is indicated by

“before”, while the post-test, which was administered when the strategies-based

instruction was over, is indicated by “after”.

4.2 Research Question 2: What are the language learning strategies that gifted

students already use in learning English as a foreign language?

Language learning strategies already utilized by gifted learners were identified at

the beginning of the study through the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL), Version for Speakers of Other Languages. The inventory was developed by

Oxford in 1989 and consists of 50 items that shed light into the strategy use of learners

before they are taught any.

SILL (Oxford, 1990) classifies language learning strategies into six groups:

memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensatory, affective, and social strategies. The

results obtained are displayed on the basis of these groups. However, before presenting

the results, it is crucial to note that not all the strategies listed below were instructed,

and some of the strategies instructed are not included in the SILL. Since the training

process and the classification of the strategies were carried out in light of Oxford’s

studies, the data regarding the frequency of strategy use were collected through SILL.

87

Memory-related strategies enable learners to link one L2 item or concept with

another. Rhyming, creating a mental picture of the word itself or the meaning of the

word, combining of sounds and images, acting out and locating (e.g., on a page or

blackboard) are some of the memory-related strategies. Table 4.14 demonstrates the

frequency of memory strategies utilized by the participants before and after strategies-

based instruction.

Table 4.14

Frequency of Use of Memory Strategies before and after Strategy Training

Memory Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always F % F % F % F % F %

1. I think of the relationship between what I already know and new things I learn in English.

Before - - 1 10 1 10 5 50 3 30

After - - - - 1 10 3 30 6 60

2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.

Before - - - - - - 3 30 7 70

After - - 1 10 1 10 5 50 3 30 3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word.

Before -

-

-

- 4 40 1 10 5 50

After - - 1

10

1

10

4

40

4

40

4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used.

Before 1

10 - - 2 20 2 20 5 50

After - - - - 1 10 4 40 5 50

5. I use rhymes to remember new English words

Before 2 20 4 40 1 10 3 30 - -

After - - 1 10 1 10 4 40 4 40

6. I use flashcards to remember new English words.

Before 2 20 5 50 2 20 1 10 - -

After - - 3 30 5 50 2 20 - -

7. I physically act out new English words.

Before 2 20 3 30 3 30 1 10 1 10

After 1 10 1 10 2 20 5 50 1 10

8.I review English lessons often.

Before 1 10 1 10 2 20 5 50 1 10

After - - - - 1 10 5 50 4 40

9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.

Before 1 10 1 10 - - 4 40 4 40

After - - 1 10 2 20 2 20 5 50

88

One of the most remarkable characteristics of gifted learners is having a perfect

memory they can make use of effectively. Table 4.14 displays the frequency of use of

memory strategies reported by the participants. As seen, there are relatively few items

that the students indicated they never use, mostly frequently preferred responses are

sometimes, usually and always. Hence, generally, gifted learners seem to make use of or

at least tried to use language learning strategies related to memory.

Post-test SILL data revealed that more students indicated they always think of

the relationship between what they already know and the new things they learn in

English (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 60%). However, the percentage of those who stated

before that they always use this strategy displays a remarkable decrease (pre-test: 70%,

post-test: 30%) while there seems to be a slight increase in those who generally use this

strategy (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 50%). Similarly, the number of those who stated that

they generally connect the sound of a new English word with an image or picture of the

word to help them remember the word increased from 10% to 40% whereas the

percentage of always decreased from 50% to 40%. In addition, the number of students

who reported that they generally remembered a new English word by making a mental

picture of a situation in which the word might be used increased (pre-test: 20%, post-

test: 40%), but the number of those who always used this strategy remained the same

(50%).

The participants were instructed the strategy of using rhymes in the strategies-

based instruction process. Thus, the post-test SILL results displayed a remarkable

increase in the use of strategy both in the generally (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 40%) and

in the always (pre-test: 0%, post-test: 40%) responses. The researcher’s field notes point

that participants found the strategy of finding rhymes very enjoyable and tried to find as

many examples as possible. However, they had difficulty in making sentences by

putting the rhyming words at the end of the sentence. During interviews and group

discussions, learners stated that they never thought that such a strategy would help them

learn new vocabulary or help with pronunciation. Eight out of ten students agreed that

they would make use of this strategy in the future. In the interview, Dila stated, “I make

use of grouping and rhyming strategies while studying the vocabulary list given by the

teacher at school. This helps me save time. Besides, it is enjoyable”. Similarly, Ayhan

states that “Studying by using rhyming words helps me with the pronunciation of

words”. His point of view was reflected in Oğuz’s sentences as well: “I have become

89

more aware of the rhyming words in songs and this helps me with the correct

pronunciation”. Finally, by giving an example that she remembers, Beril expressed that

she found the rhyming strategy very helpful “I can still remember the example punch-

lunch- crunch. I am trying to find new rhyming words and I enjoy it.”

Using flashcards to learn new words was not favoured by students as none of the

responses included the always item. However, the increase in the sometimes item

suggests that the participants seem to have started making use of flashcards more

frequently (pre-test: 20%, post-test: 50%). In the same vein, students did not seem to

like physically acting out the words to learn new vocabulary before strategy training,

but their responses in the generally item display an increase in the post-test (pre-test:

10%, post-test: 50%). The participants also seem to have given more importance to

reviewing English lessons regularly since all responses center around the items usually

(pos-test: 20%), generally (post-test: 50%), and always (pre-test: 10% and post-test:

40%). Lastly, remembering new English words or phrases by remembering their

location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign did not reveal a notable change. It

is important to note that the participants of this study were not provided a direct

instruction of the strategies in this category except for the strategy of finding rhymes.

However, various pictures and related activities used in the strategy training

process revealed that the participants have begun to make use of other strategies,

helping them to build a relationship between words, pictures, sounds and sentences. For

instance, when they were asked to talk about the differences between the pictures, many

of the students reportedly did not know where to start. Hence, their sentences

demonstrated syntactic and semantic mistakes. However, after having instructed the

strategy helping them to organize their sentences, they made use of the strategy in

different pictures they were provided with. For instance, while talking about the

differences between the pictures, Dila made the sentence by pointing the differences and

could not make grammatically correct sentences “Sandwich…. Tail… Chair… Book…

Cell phone”. Her statements did not include the differences related to these objects.

However, once she learned about the strategy, she used her knowledge in a different

picture by making up much more comprehensible sentences despite the minor errors in

syntax. Her sentences after training were “In picture 1, a man has two eyebrows….but

in Picture 2, a man hasn’t got two eyebrows…or he has got one eyebrow. In Picture 1,

a man has got a belt, but in Picture 2 a man hasn’t got a belt””. Gizem’s sentences for

90

the same pictures were as follows before strategy training : “This….mouse... This mouse

haven’t tail…..There aren’t a glass…The two picture… there aren’t a sandwich… There

aren’t phone… There are four apples, but there are four apples”. Her sentences

changed as follows after the training “The man has eyebrow in the Picture 1, but the

man hasn’t eyebrow in the Picture 2. The man has belt in Picture 1, but the man hasn’t

belt in Picture 2.” (see Appendix 13 for one of the pictures of the activities)

Cognitive strategies enable learners to manipulate the language materials

directly, Some such strategies are reasoning, analyzing, note-taking, summarizing,

synthesizing, outlining, reorganizing information to develop stronger schemas

(knowledge structures), and practicing structures and sounds formally. Table 4.15

presents the frequency of the use of cognitive strategies before and after strategy

training.

Table 4.15

Frequency of Use of Cognitive Strategies Before and After Strategy Training Cognitive Strategies Never Rarely Someti

mes Usually Always

F % F % F % F % F % 10. I say or write new English words several times.

Before - - 1 10 - - 5 50 4 40

After - - 2 20 4 40 3 30 1 10 11. I try to talk like native speakers.

Before - - - - 3 30 2 20 5 50

After - - 1 10 - - 1 10 8 80 12. I practice the sounds of English. Before

- - 3 30 1 10 2 20 4 40

After - - 1 10 - - 4 40 5 50 13. I use the English words I know in different ways.

Before 1 10 1 10 4 40 4 40 - After - - - - 2 20 6 60 20

14. I start conversations in English.

Before - - 3 30 5 50 - - 2 20 After - - 2 20 2 20 4 40 2 20

15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.

Before 1 10 3 30 3 30 1 10 2 20 After

- - 2 20 2 20 4 40 2 20

16. I read for pleasure in English.

Before - - 5 50 2 20 2 20 1 10 After

- - 1 10 5 50 2 20 2 20

17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.

Before 1 10 4 40 2 20 2 20 1 10 After - - 1 10 3 30 6 60 - -

91

Table 4.15 (Continued) 18. I first skim an English passage then go back and read carefully.

Before - - 2 20 2 20 3 30 3 30 After - - - - 2 20 3 30 5 50

19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.

Before 1 10 1 10 4 40 2 20 2 20 After

- - - - 1 10 6 60 3 30

20. I try to find patterns in English.

Before 1 10 3 30 4 40 2 20 - - After - - - - 3 30 5 50 3 30

21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand.

Before 1 10 1 10 1 10 3 30 4 40 After

- - - - 1 10 2 20 7 70

22. I try not to translate word-for-word.

Before 1 10 3 30 1 10 4 40 1 10 After 1 10 1 10 1 10 2 20 5 50

23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.

Before 3 30 1 10 3 30 3 30 - - After

1 10 2 20 5 50 1 10 1 10

Writing English words several times was found to be favored by a great majority

of students before strategy training. In the strategy learning process, the participants

were taught that writing words several times is not the only way for learning new

vocabulary. Hence, after training, the participants were found to choose the always item

less frequently than the period before training (pre-test: always 40 %, post-test 10 %).

Data obtained from the interviews revealed that learners used the strategy of writing

words several times because their teachers asked them to do so. In the interviews

conducted after the training was over, the participants were given a list of words and

asked about the way they would study for them. Their responses after strategies-based

instruction included grouping (7 pupils) and making up a song or a story (3 pupils).

Ercan, for instance, stated, “I would write down the words several times if I did not

know the grouping strategy. Actually I hate writing words for several times, but this was

the only way I knew”. In a similar vein, Dila reported that “I have learnt that the

strategies I have learnt can help me save time. I used to spend so much time trying to

write down and memorise the English words I needed to learn. Now I use grouping and

finding rhymes”.

As seen in Table 4.15, there is a notable increase in students’ efforts to try to talk

like native speakers. Eighty percent of the participants stated that they “always” tried to

talk like native speakers after training while this proportion was 50% before training. In

92

line with these efforts, the participants seem to practice the sounds of English more

frequently than they did before strategy training (always: 50%, usually: 40%). Learners

have indicated that they began to give importance to speaking. In the interview

conducted after training, Beril stated that “Although I sound silly, I know that I am just

learning” while Bertan pointed “Now I can speak more fluently, but more important

than that I can understand what I am saying”.

Before the strategy training, the participants seemed not to be making use of the

strategy of using new words in different ways (usually: 40%, always:0). There seems to

be an increase in this item as well (usually: 60%, always: 20%). This may imply that the

participants have begun to make use of strategies, such as using rhymes, substitution

and dividing words into meaningful parts. The increase in the use of this strategy might

have resulted from strategies in which the participants used words in different ways.

These kinds of strategies in which they discover the relationships between words and

word parts are fun for gifted learners as they are engaged in intellectual play and enjoy

puns (see Section 2.1.4 in Chapter 2).

Before the strategy training, none of the participants stated that they usually start

conversations in English. Instead, half of the students reported that they sometimes tried

to start conversations. However, strategy training appears to have caused a change in the

frequency of using this strategy as well (usually: 40%, always: 20%). As stated by

Bertan “I used to think but could not utter a word in English, now I know where to

start”. In a similar vein, Dila reported that “I used to understand the things spoken in

English, but could not respond or did not use to start conversations, now I have become

more self-confident”.

Before the strategy training, the percentages of those who usually and always

watch English language TV shows in English or go to movies were 10% and 20%

respectively. The responses regarding the usually and always items tend to demonstrate

an increase after training (usually: 40%, always: 20%). More in depth analysis through

interviews indicated that some participants do not spend time watching TV in general or

they do not have English TV channels at home. Bartu, Ercan and Beril stated that they

watched a few English TV shows and added that these shows improved their listening

skills.

93

However, the strategy of reading for pleasure does not reveal much difference

except for in rarely (pre-test: 50%, post-test: 10%) and sometimes items (pre-test: 20%,

post-test: 50%). Other choices regarding this item remained almost the same. As for

writing messages, letters, or reports in English, the rarely option displayed a decrease

(pre-test: 40%, post-test: 10%) while the usually item showed an increase (pre-test:

20%, post-test: 60%). The participants seem to have started taking short notes in

English. Strategies-based instruction included note-taking strategy for listening, writing

and speaking activities. Data collected from the interviews showed that eight out of 10

students found the strategy very helpful and indicated that they would use it while

preparing for a presentation in English. Sait stated, “Short notes help me make up long

sentences” and Gizem expressed her ideas about note taking with these sentences: “I

used to take notes in Turkish and then translate them into English. Now I understand

that this causes a loss of time. I have begun to write short notes in English and make up

sentences using these notes.”

Looking for words in their own language that are similar to new words in English

showed an increase in the usually item (pre-test: 20%, post-test: 60%) and a decrease in

the sometimes item (pre-test: 40%, post-test: 10%). In the strategy dividing words into

parts to find their meanings, the participants explored that some clues such as prefixes

and suffixes and parts of the compound nouns can help them make intelligent guesses

about the meanings of unknown words. They also stated that L1 knowledge also helped

them to find clues regarding the meaning of words. Their responses regarding the

strategy of dividing words item displayed an increase especially in the always option

(pre-test: 40%, post-test: 70%).

After the strategy training, the participants seemed to increase their awareness in

finding patterns in the target language. Before the strategies-based instruction, their

answers were 10%, 30%, 40%, 20% and 0% for never, rarely, sometimes, usually and

always items respectively. However, they did not choose the never and rarely items in

the post-test. Their responses seemed to center around the usually (50%) and always

(30%) options. However, making summaries of information that they hear or read in

English does not display an increase: never (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 10%), rarely (pre-

test: 10%, post-test: 20%), sometimes (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 50%), usually (pre-test:

30%, post-test: 10%), always (pre-test: 0%, post-test: 10%).

94

To conclude, the strategy training provided to the students seemed to enhance

their use of cognitive strategies. Table 4.16 demonstrates the frequency of use of

compensation strategies before and after the strategy training.

Table 4.16

Frequency of Use of Compensation Strategies before and after Strategy Training Compensation Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

F % F % F % F % F % 24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.

Before - - - - 2 20 4 40 4 40

After - - - - - - 4 40 6 60

25. When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.

Before - - 1 10 - - 6 60 3 30

After - - - - 1 10 4 40 5 50

26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

Before 4 40 1 10 2 20 3 30 1 10

After 2 20 - - 1 10 5 50 2 20

27. I read English without looking up every new word.

Before 1 10 3 30 2 20 2 20 2 20

After - - 2 20 1 10 5 50 2 20

28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.

Before - - - - 4 40 4 40 2 20

After - - 1 10 3 30 2 20 4 40

29. If I can’t think of an English word I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.

Before - - 2 20 - - 4 40 4 40 After

- - - - 1 10 3 30 6 60

The participants seem to make use of making guesses before they were

instructed such a strategy since the majority of the responses included no never or

rarely options even before training. In the same vein, there is a remarkable increase in

the frequency of the usually and always options after training. As can be seen in Table

4.16, more than half of the students seem to make use of the guessing strategy after

training (60%). Most of the participants appeared to make use of gestures before

strategy training as well (usually: 60%, always: 30%). Only two students stated that

they rarely (10%) or sometimes (10%) used gestures. Results included only usually and

always items after startegy training, which shows that participants have begun to utilize

the language learning strategies in their lives. In the interview, Beril indicated, “I have

learnt that all my efforts show that I am just learning. Now, I am using strategies as a

learner”. She further explained that she used to worry about looking silly by using

95

gestures, but later she began to think that it is just a part her efforts to go on

communicating.

It is important to note that the participants do not seem to be in favor of using

some strategies. For instance, making up new words does not seem to be a frequently

used strategy neither before nor after the training; the only notable increase is in the

usually option (pre-test: 20%, post-test: 50%). Especially the speaking activities carried

out during the think-aloud protocols revealed that the participants tried to make up some

words from time to time, but immediately gave up because of not being sure. For

instance, Bertan could not remember the word “belt”, which is “kemer” in Turkish.

Hence, he said “kemır” trying to make it sound English. Then, he laughed and said that

he was just kidding. Similarly, while working in groups, students said “dog fish” since

they could not recall the word “shark”. The reason is that the word “shark” is the

combination of the words “dog” and “fish” in Turkish. More examples were recorded

especially in the activities limited to time. Transferring from the native language,

students produced the word “moonflower”, for “sunflower”, and “portıkıl water” for

“orange juice”. To the researcher’s experience, gifted learners’ creativity can help them

produce many words, but they want to use the correct one as they do not like making

mistakes. Therefore, it seems that the participants do not find making up new words

logical.

Although before training the participants did not seem to have the habit of

reading without using a dictionary, half of them stated that they usually try to read

without looking up every word after training (pre-test: 20%, post-test: 50%). During the

interviews Bertan and Sait indicated that they make use of the guessing strategies and

try to read in English without looking up every word.

Finally, in the strategy training process, the participants were instructed that they

could make use of the substitution strategy. Thus, when they cannot think of a word

during conversation, they could use the words they know so as to avoid communication

breakdowns. As seen in Table 4.16, except for the two pupils who stated that they

rarely made use of such strategy, in total 80% of them stated that they used the

substitution strategy (always: 40%, usually:40%). After training, the percentages

showed an increase in the always option (pre-test: 40 %, post-test: 60 %). Some

examples regarding the use of the substitution strategy are indicated as follows:

96

Beril stated, “I found the substitution strategy very helpful. The other day I

found myself using it even in my native language when I could not remember the word

encyclopedia”. Similarly, Ayhan pointed “I used to try to find the meaning of a certain

word and could not go on communication. After learning the substitution strategy I am

trying to say it in a simpler way”. Think-aloud protocols clearly indicate the use of

substitution strategy by the participants. For instance, Bartu wanted to say “The man

behind the goat” and that man was wearing a gray dress. He said “the gray man has got

a belt, but in the second picture this man hasn’t got a belt”. In another example during

the think-aloud protocols he said “Five birds in the….” and stated that he could not

recall the word “lake”. Hence, he completed the sentence substituting the word with

another one and came up with “Five birds in the water”. Nilgün did exactly the same

thing. She wanted to say that “Ducks are in the lake” but she changed her sentence as

“Ducks are in the water”. In a similar vein, Sait used “The ice-cream man” for the man

who was selling ice cream. Before learning how to utilize the substitution strategy, the

students tried to find the exact translation of the words they wanted to use, which

caused failure in completing the tasks.

Results show that although learners seem to use the compensation strategies

before they were taught any, their responses displayed an increase especially in the

usually and always options, which indicates that learners make use of the strategies

more frequently than before. As a result, strategy training seems to have positive effects

on the strategy use of learners.

Metacognitive strategies help learners to manage their learning process. Some of

these strategies are identifying one’s own learning style preferences and needs, planning

for an L2 task, gathering and organizing materials, arranging a study space and a

schedule, monitoring mistakes, and evaluating task success. A number of studies

(Scruggs et al., 1985; Lovecky, 2003) have shown that gifted children are different from

their peers in that they spontaneously employ more elaborate and effective learning

strategies and have superior metacognitive ability.

Table 4.17 shows the frequency of metacognitive strategies before and after

training.

97

Table 4.17

Frequency of Use of Metacognitive Strategies Before and After Strategy Training

Unlike memory, cognitive and compensation strategies, the strategy training

seems to have caused almost no positive changes in the use of metacognitive strategies

according to the results of the SILL (Oxford, 1990). What is more interesting, some

items revealed a decrease in the frequency of use. For instance, in total 70% of the

participants stated that they usually (60%) or always (10%) try to plan their schedule so

that they can have enough time to study English, these percentages changed into 30%

(usually) and 20% (always) after training. The approaching exam may have had an

effect on their decision to spend time studying English. Similarly, although the

participants stated that they usually (40%) looked for people to speak English before

training, no learners chose the usually item in the post-test.

Metacognitive Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always F % F % F % F % F %

30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.

Before - - - - 4 40 3 30 3 30

After - - - - 2 20 5 50 3 30

31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.

Before - - - - 4 40 4 40 2 20

After - - - - 2 20 6 60 2 20

32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English.

Before - - - - 2 20 2 20 6 60

After - - - - 1 10 3 30 6 60

33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.

Before - - - - 2 20 4 40 4 40

After - - - - 2 20 4 40 4 40

34. I plan my Schedule so I will have enough time to study English.

Before 1

10 2 20 - - 6 60 1 10

After - - 3 30 2 20 3 30 2 20

35. I look for people I can talk to in English.

Before - - 1 10 1 10 4 40 4 40

After - - 3 30 2 20 - - 5 50

36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.

Before - - 3 30 3 30 3 30 1 10

After 1 10 1 10 4 40 3 30 2 20

37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.

Before - - - - 4 40 4 40 2 20

After - - - - 1 10 6 60 4 40

38. I think about my progress in learning English.

Before - - 1 10 4 40 - - 4 40

After - - - - 1 10 4 40 5 50

98

Some items such as paying attention when someone is speaking English, looking

for opportunities to read in English, and having clear goals to improve their English

almost remained the same. However, post-test results indicate that learners have begun

to think about their progress in English more frequently after training (pre-test, usually:

0%, post-test: 40% and pre-test, always: 40%, post-test: 50%). To conclude, according

to the data obtained from SILL, strategy training does not seem to cause any remarkable

increase in the frequency of metacognitive strategies.

However, interview results demonstrated clear indicators of metacognitive

strategies such as thinking about their progress. Learners evaluated their learning by

talking about their performance at school or in other learning activities. For instance

Dila thinks that her marks increased significantly as a result of the training she received.

Her sentences regarding this comment were as follows: “My marks were between 80

and 84. I used to get so angry because of not being able to get even 85. This year, my

marks are between 90 and 95. In addition, I used to have at least two mistakes in the

multiple choice questions, now I have none. I also learned to make meaningful

sentences”. Similarly, Ercan reported that “I have not been so good at English and

found English lessons at school boring. However, for the first time in my life I began to

make up sentences here.” Gizem highlighted that “Before coming here, I used to study

English solely for the purpose of passing multiple choice exams, but I have seen that

English is something far beyond SBS exam”. Nilgün said “I like strategies and use them

at school, too. For example, I have begun to take more organized notes in the other

lessons.”

Affective strategies, such as talking about feelings, rewarding oneself for good

performance, and using deep breathing or positive self-talk, are related to the emotional

aspects of learning and have shown to be effective in L2 learning.

Table 4.18 demonstrates the participants’ responses regarding the affective

learning strategies.

99

Table 4.18

Frequency of Use of Affective Strategies Before and After Strategy Training Affective Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

F % F % F % F % F % 39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.

Before - - - - - - 6 60 4 40

After - - - - 1 10 5 50 4 40

40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making mistakes.

Before 3 30 1 10 2 20 3 30

After - - 1 10 - - 3 30 5 50

41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.

Before 1 10 3 30 2 20 3 30 2 20

After - - 2 20 3 30 5 50 1 10

42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.

Before - - 1 10 - - 2 20 7 70

After - - - - 1 10 3 30 5 50

43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.

Before 9 90 1 10 - - - - - -

After 9 90 - - 1 10 - - - -

44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

Before 2 20 4 40 3 30 1 10 - -

After - - 2 20 6 60 1 10 - -

Table 4.18 presents the use of affective strategies before and after training, and

as seen, nearly all of the participants notice if they are tense or nervous when they are

studying or using English (always: 70%, usually: 20%). This finding is supported by the

data obtained during the strategy training. Many students reported that their stress

ruined everything especially in the speaking tasks. The students also reported to try to

relax when they feel so (usually: 60%, always: 40%). However, almost none of the

students write down their feelings in a language diary (never: 90%), nor do they talk to

someone else about how they feel very often (rarely: 40%, sometimes: 30%). Some of

the students seem to be able to encourage themselves to speak English even when they

are afraid of making mistakes (always: 30%, usually: 20%) and reward themselves

(rarely: 30%, usually: 30%). These results show that gifted students participating in the

study did not seem to make use of the affective strategies as much as the other strategies

before they were provided a strategies-based instruction.

The strategies-based instruction carried out in this study did not include the

direct instruction of affective strategies. As displayed in Table 4.18, not many items

revealed an increase in the use of affective strategies. More students seem to have begun

100

to encourage themselves to speak English even when they are afraid of making mistakes

since responses to rarely item showed a decrease (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 10%) while

to always, an increase was displayed (pre-test: 30%, post-test: 50%). A similar decrease

was detected in the always item of the strategy feeling tense or nervous while studying

English (pre-test: 70%, post-test: 50%).

However, it can be clearly seen that participants are not in favour of using the

strategy of writing down their feelings in a language learning diary. In a similar vein,

they do not like sharing their feelings about learning English, as responses to these

strategies did not include the always response neither before nor after the training. As it

was mentioned in the characteristics of gifted learners, they do not like writing activities

(See Section 2.1.4 in Chapter 2). This characteristic of them was evident in the pilot

study process, too. The participants stated that they did not like writing about

themselves or even filling out questionnaires.

To summarize the data demonstrating the frequency of the affective strategies,

although interview results indicate that students have become more self-confident after

strategy training, results of the SILL do not seem to produce significant positive

changes in terms of the use of affective strategies.

During the interview, Nilgün stated that “I used to feel very stressful and

actually hated English because I could not succeed, but in the activities in which I used

language learning strategies, I felt self-confident”. Dila and Ercan also indicated their

self-confidence by giving examples from the activities carried out. Ercan pointed that he

could not utter anything during the activity in which they described things. However, he

could explain nearly half of the things when he used the strategy instructed. He

reportedly felt more self-confident.

Social strategies aid in learning about the culture of target language as well as

the language itself. Some of the social strategies are asking questions to get verification,

asking for clarification of a confusing point, asking for help in doing a language task,

talking with a native-speaking conversation partner, and exploring cultural and social

norms.

Table 4.19 demonstrates the frequency of use of these strategies before and after

training.

101

Table 4.19

Frequency of Use of Social Strategies Before and After Strategy Training Social Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

F % F % F % F % F % 45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.

Before 6 60 4 40

After - - - - 1 10 5 50 4 40

46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.

Before 2 20 2 20 6 60

After - - - - 2 20 3 30 5 50

47. I practice English with other students.

Before 1 10 2 20 5 50 1 10 1 10

After - - 1 10 6 60 3 30 - -

48. I ask for help from English speakers.

Before 2 20 - - 7 70 2 20

After - - - - - - 5 50 5 50

49. I ask questions in English.

Before - - - - 3 30 5 50 2 20

After - - - - 1 10 7 70 2 20

50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

Before 1 10 2 20 2 20 3 30 2 20

After 1 10 1 10 1 10 3 30 4 40

Table 4.19 shows that the social strategies do not seem to display an increase in

frequency except for a slight increase in the always item regarding trying to learn about

the culture of English speakers (pre-test: 20%, post-test: 40%), always item about

asking for help from English speakers (pre-test: 20%, post-test: 50%), and the usually

item regarding asking questions in English (pre-test: 50%, post-test: 70%).

As shown in Table 4.19, the most favored social strategy is asking the other

person to slow down or say it again when they do not understand something in English

(always: 40%, usually: 60%). Again, correlated with gifted learners’ perfectionist

approach revealed in the data obtained from the questionnaires, the students reported

that they would be willing to be corrected when they talk (always: 60%, usually: 20%).

Half of the students stated that they ask questions in English (usually: 50%, always:

20%). However, they do not seem to be very interested in practicing English with other

students (always: 10%, usually: 10%) or learning the culture of English speakers

(always: 20%). Thus, only half of the participants seem to be aware of some of the

social learning strategies. These findings correlate with the ones obtained from the

questionnaires (see Section 4.1) in which the participants indicated that they would like

to be fluent speakers of the language and practice English with native speakers, but they

102

do not find themselves or their friends proficient enough to practice. Besides, they

accept that their stress causes them fail in speaking activities.

Gifted learners are self-confident users of their own language and enjoy talking

about issues beyond their ages with people older than themselves. In line with the

researcher’s experience, students feel discouraged when they cannot do this in the

foreign language.

The frequency of strategy use shows that a number of students participating in

the study seem to have discovered the advantages of the language learning strategies,

which is one of their characteristics as gifted learners. However, they do not seem to be

in favor of using or even aware of many of the strategies which would make their

learning more effective. The reported frequency of strategy use in the findings before

training suggest that gifted learners do need the instruction of the language learning

strategies to make their learning more organized, easier, faster, and more effective.

The strategy training provided for the participants did not include all the

strategies in the SILL (Oxford, 1990). It is not easy to identify the role of strategies

through merely this questionnaire, as the strategies instructed did not overlap with the

ones in the SILL. However, as explained previously in the tables, the instructed

strategies revealed an increase in the frequency of use. Moreover, interview results

provided insight into the role and use of language learning strategies from the

participants’ perspectives. The participants indicated that they began to use the

instructed strategies not only in English lessons, but also in many activities at school.

The third research question of the study aimed at finding the role of the strategy

training in the gifted learners’ use of language learning strategies. Before demonstrating

the findings in the tables below, it is important to remind that identifying strategy use is

not an easy task since it is not directly observable. This study makes use of various data

collection tools so as to explore the strategy use of learners. Having presented the

findings obtained from SILL, the following section presents the results in relation to the

third research question.

103

4.3 Research Question 3: Does strategies-based English instruction produce any

change in gifted learners’ initial language learning strategies?

Whether strategies based instruction produced any changes in the gifted

learners’ initial language learning strategies were presented in the tables together with

the pre-test and post-test results (see Section 4.2). In addition, more clues regarding

their use of strategies were explored through think-aloud protocols.

Data collected from the think-aloud protocols provided insights pertaining to the

areas of difficulties and the ways students handle them. This way of collecting data also

revealed strategy use. Think-aloud protocols were conducted before and after strategy

training. Since the purpose of the think-aloud protocol is to look for clues of strategy

use, this section presents data gathered from think-aloud protocols conducted after

training. The ones conducted before strategy training will be presented in Section 4.4.

In the think-aloud protocols conducted after the training had been over, the

participants were asked to work on four activities and verbalize their thoughts in the

process.

Activity 1: In the first activity, the participants were asked to describe colorful

pictures given by the teacher. In the tables presented below, evidence for strategy use is

written under the students’ uttered sentences (see Appendix 15 for sample picture).

Activity 2: The second activity aimed at identifying whether the grouping

strategy helped learners to transfer their knowledge of strategies into a similar learning

activity. Hence, the students were given a list of words (pink, eagle, Tuesday, monkey,

television, wardrobe, elephant, bird, Monday, sofa, bed, Saturday, pillow, crocodile,

bear, panda, table, curtain, black, purple) and asked how they would study to learn and

remember them later on. It was expected that the students who were instructed

alternative vocabulary learning strategies would point out that they would use the

grouping strategy.

Activity 3: The third activity required the participants to talk about differences

between pictures. Hence, they were asked to mention two differences in the pictures

given. It was identified before the training that the participants did not know how to

begin telling something when they were asked to talk about differences. This activity

aimed at identifying whether strategies-based language instruction helped the

104

participants to talk about differences between pictures (see Appendix 13 for the picture

used in this activity).

Activity 4: The last activity of the think-aloud protocol was related to a

presentation the students needed to prepare. The researcher asked the participants how

they would get prepared for a presentation about their favourite animals. Based on the

researcher’s experience, in these kinds of tasks, gifted students tend to prepare the

things they would like to say in their native language and translate it into English. In

their answers given to this question, the researcher aimed to look for a clue of strategy

use, for example taking notes.

The results are presented in the following tables, for each student separately. In

Table 4.20, Ercan’s sentences are presented for each activity.

Table 4.20

Ercan’s Think- aloud Protocol Activity 1

Describing the pictures

Activity 2

Learning a list of

words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: Ducks swim in the

water. Children play the ball.

Children are playing in the

park.

Pic 2:Cat is on the bed. Fish

in the aquarium. Ball and car

under the bed. There aren’t

windows.

Pic 3: There are children.

Boys watch television.

Girl…talk…telephone. Girl

and boy playing game.

Girl…watching out. There is a

glass. There is a white glass.

Substituted the word “lake”

with “water” and the

phrases “ sliding-making

I would group the

words

(transferred the strategy

knowledge)

“If I had not learned

the grouping strategy,

I would write down

the words several

times though I hate

it!”

One picture…Man has

got two eyebrows.

In two picture there is

one eyebrow. He has got

one eyebrow.

In Picture 1, man has got

belt.

I would take short notes

as we did in writing a

composition.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

105

sand castles- playing with

the other toys-tools” with

the sentence “children are

playing in the park”.

(Used the strategy instructed)

(Used the strategy

instructed)

In Picture 2, hasn’t got

belt.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

As it can be seen in the notes underneath each activity, Ercan seems to have

gained from the strategy training, since he transferred the strategies instructed into other

activities. He did not know or could not recall the word “lake” and he simply substituted

it with “water”. One of the pictures had children playing in the sand and with other tools

in the park. Instead of trying to describe each activity, he summarized what was going

on with the sentence, “The children are playing in the park”.

As for the activity about the word list, he said he would group them to learn

more easily. He further explained that if he had not learned this strategy, he would write

them several times. While talking about differences, his sentences included syntactic

errors, but revealed necessary information such as the number of the picture which he

was talking about.

Finally, transferring from the writing activity in which they used short phrases to

make up longer sentences; Ercan stated that he would prepare short English notes to get

ready for a presentation. As a result, he seems to have gained from the strategies-based

instruction.

Table 4.21 displays Dila’s performance in the activities. Similar to Ercan, Dila

indicated that she gained from strategy training since she used language learning

strategies in the activities. As seen in the notes in Table 4.21, she transferred the

instructed strategies into other activities. In the first activity, she could not remember

the words “pond” and “desk”, so she substituted them with “water” and “table”. When

she looked at the words in the list, she said she would create a code from the initials if

there were fewer words. However, she said grouping would be more helpful. Her

sentences explaining the differences between the pictures clearly demonstrated the

differences. Lastly, she reported that she would take short notes in English while getting

prepared for a presentation. Thus, it seems that she makes use of the language learning

106

strategies she has been taught. Her sentences are shown in Table 4.21 and it is followed

by the presentation of the findings obtained from Oğuz in Table 4.22.

Table 4.21

Dila’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2

Learning a list of words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic1: Park…In the

park…Swings in the

park.(counting) There are

nineteen people in the

park. There are five birds.

Children eating ice-cream.

Ducks swimming in the

…water.

Pic2: Bedroom. Bedroom

is untidy. Poster…on the

wall. There are posters on

the ball. Cat is on the bed.

(I’ll say table for

this).Aquarium is on the

table.

Pic3: Livingroom. The boy

watching T.V.

Girl…talking. Two

children playing games.

Substituted the word

“desk” with “table” and

“pond” with “water”.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would group the words.

If there were fewer

words, I would create a

code.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

In Picture 1, a man has

two eyebrows, but in

Picture 2 a man hasn’t

got two eyebrows…or he

has got one eyebrow.

In Picture 1, a man has

got a belt, but in Picture

2 a man hasn’t got a belt.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would prepare short

reminders as we did

before.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

107

Table 4.22

Oğuz’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2

Learning a list of

words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic1: There is a old woman feed

the animals. She is travelling with

her son in the park. Two children

is buying ice-cream. A child sitting

in the bench. Two children playing

with ball. Two children watching

the animals. Ducks are

swimming..in the lake.

Pic 2: There is a not tidy in the

picture. A sleeping room. A car

and a ball under the bed. A cat on

the bed. Boots are on the

wardrobe. And clothes are on the

wardrobe, not tidy. And pictures

are on the wall. On the wall and

door.

Pic 3: A boy..watching television,

an action film. Two children are

playing board game. A

girl..sleeping with telephone. And

a girl watching outside..on the

chair.

Substituted the word “pond”

with “lake”, the word “untidy”

with “not tidy”, and the word

“bedroom” with “sleeping

room”.


I would make up a

story and review it

often

(Student was

absent when the

grouping strategy

was instructed)

(Did not use the

strategy instructed)

A man have got two

eyebrow in the first

picture, but the man

have got an eyebrow

in the second

picture.

The man..the second

man has got a belt

first picture, but the

same man hasn’t got

a belt in the second

picture.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would take short

English notes and

make up sentences.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

108

Oğuz’s English proficiency level was higher than the other students in the group.

Hence, as seen in his sentences, he could make longer and more meaningful sentences.

In the first activity, he wanted to use the word “pond”, but when he could not remember

it, he substituted it with “lake”. His excitement caused him to forget the word

“bedroom”, and he immediately substituted it with “sleeping room”. He also used

antonyms to substitute for the word “untidy” using “not tidy” instead. He was absent

when the grouping strategy was instructed and interestingly enough he could not

recognize the word groups that were noticed by other students at first glance. Thus, he

explained his own way of studying vocabulary: making up a story and reviewing the list

often. He could successfully explain the differences between the pictures by using the

strategies instructed. Like Dila and Ercan, he stated that he would take short notes in

English and make use of these notes in his speech. Therefore, Oğuz seems to have

gained from the strategy training.

Table 4.23 presents Gizem’s performance.

Table 4.23

Gizem’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2


Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: Ducks are swim in

the pool. Child is pointing.

Children ...play ball. Birds

are eating something.

Mans are sitting. Girls are

eat ice-cream.

Pic 2: Woman talking with

phone. Girl is looking

outside. Children are play

game. Boy is watching

T.V.

Pic 3: Room is untidy.

Fish are in the bowl.

Horse picture and guitar

picture on the wall.

I would group the

words.

(Used the strategy

The man has eyebrow

in the picture 1, but

the man hasn’t

eyebrow in the picture

2.

The man has belt in

picture 1, but the man

hasn’t belt in picture

2.

I would take short

English notes. I

wouldn’t write long

sentences.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

109

Cat…Cat is sleeping on

the bed. Car… Car is

under the bed. Ball…is

under the bed. Substituted

the word “poster” with

“picture”

(Used the strategy

instructed)

instructed)

(Used the strategy

instructed)

Gizem could recall the necessary vocabulary better than the other students while

she was describing pictures. She did not need to substitute the words pool, pointing, or

untidy. To describe the posters on the wall, she used the word picture, which indicated

her strategy use. In other activities she seemed to make use of the strategies instructed

since she grouped the words, talked about the differences, and stated that she would

take short notes to produce longer sentences. She also explained that before learning the

strategy of taking notes, she used to write whole sentences and even paragraphs. She

reported finding the strategy very helpful and the results demonstrate that she also

makes use of the instructed strategies.

Bertan’s data are presented in Table 4.24. His performance also indicates that he

has learned to use the strategies instructed. Similar to other students, he substituted the

word “pond” with “lake”. He knew that he needed to use the word “desk”, but he used

“table” since he did not remember it. In the second activity, when he saw a list of words

he could notice word groups at first glance and he saw grouping words under certain

headings as “shortening”. He used the strategies instructed in the third and fourth

activities as well. He could clearly explain the differences and reported making use of

short notes while preparing for a presentation. Table 4.24 and Table 4.25 present

Bertan’s and Sait’s performance.

110

Table 4.24

Bertan’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2

Learning a list of

words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: Children are walking in the

park. Ducks, eight ducks, are

swimming in the…lake. Children are

sitting….It’s hot dog next to..the girl.

Boy and woman talking in the park.

Pic 2: Cat. It is sleeping on the bed.

Car and ball…under the bed.

Lamp…It’s on the table. Lamp is on the

table….Clock on the table.

Pic3: Girl and boy sitting…The child

watching the T.V. The child talking

telephone. Child, girl..watch the

garden…

Substituted the word “pond” with

“lake” and “desk” with “table”


I would shorten

the words by

grouping.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

The grocer has

got eyebrow in

picture 1, grocer

hasn’t got a

eyebrow in

picture 2.

Grocer has got

two eyebrow in

picture 1, grocer

hasn’t got two

eyebrow in

picture 2.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would use

pictures and

memorize the

characteristics of

the animals. I

would not need to

take detailed

notes.

(did not use the


111

Table 4.25

Sait’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2


Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: There is a

ball…Ducks are

swimming… Ice-cream

man sell ice-cream. Hot

dogs man selling hot

dogs…Old woman

feeding birds.

Pic 2: Children…Child

watching to the T.V.

Children… Two children

play. Child..watching

garden. Child is talking

phone.

Pic 3: Car and ball

under the bed… The cat

is on the bed. Clothes in

the wardrobe.

Used “ice-cream man”

and “hot dog man” for

sellers

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would group the

words.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

He has got a belt,

picture 1, but picture

2 he hasn’t got a belt.

In picture 1, he has

got two eyebrows,

picture 2 he has got

one eyebrow.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would take short

notes.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

As seen in Table 4.25, Sait’s performance in the activities shows that he utilizes

the strategies instructed. He used substitution and grouping, and explained the

differences between the pictures. He mentioned that he found strategy training very

112

helpful, especially the one teaching them how to take and make use of short notes.

Hence, for the last activity he said he would take short English notes and make up

longer sentences.

Table 4.26

Ayhan’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2


Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: Two children play

with ball. She is eat ice-

cream. Mother and son

walking. Ducks eat…food.

Pic 2: A cat is on the bed.

Sleeping. A toy car is

under the bed. A fish is on

the table. A cupboard is

open. Ball is colour red

and yellow.

Pic 3: Mother…Is..tlak a

phone. Child is watch T.V.

Red Kit. Children play a

game.

Substituted the sentence

“the woman is feeding

the ducks” with “ducks

eat food” and the word

“western” with “Red

Kit”.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

There are groups:

days, animals,

colours. I would

group the words.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

He has got two

eyebrow. He has

got one eyebrow.

She has got a belt,

she hasn’t got a

belt.

(made up sentences,

but did not mention

the number of

pictures, used the


I would take short

notes. For

instance, I would

write “yellow,

strong and I like”

for a lion. Then, I

would make up

sentences using

these notes.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

Given the researcher’s field notes underneath the data regarding Ayhan’s

performance, it can be concluded that he can successfully make use of the strategies. He

used substitution while describing the pictures. He wanted to say that “the woman is

feeding the ducks”. While many other students avoided talking about this difference,

113

Ayhan substituted this sentence by saying “ducks eat food”. In the second activity, he

immediately named the groups by saying days, animals, and colours and said that these

words can be grouped so as to be remembered later on. Although he could not include

the picture numbers, he could explain the differences between the pictures accurately.

Finally, he not only stated that he would make use of short notes while getting prepared

for a presentation, but also gave an example of the way he would use the strategy.

Table 4.27 presents Beril’s performance. With her witty personality, Beril

usually brought a different perspective to the activities carried out. She made use of the

substitution strategy very effectively. As seen in the table, she even named the people in

the pictures so as to be able to continue communicating. However, she did not use the

grouping strategy and explained her own way of studying vocabulary. She could

successfully explain the differences between the pictures. In addition, she gave

examples of the notes she would take while preparing for a presentation.

114

Table 4.27

Beril’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2

Learning a list of

words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: Paark! Ice-cream stand….

And ice-cream is delicious! And

there are many children…and

pool…Duck in the pool. Children

play ball..soccer…Woman is

feeding birds. There are five birds.

Pic 2: Untidy room in the picture.

There are everything. Cat sleeping

and on the bed. They are car and

ball. They are under the bed.

Fish…on the table.

Pic 3: There are five children.

Television…phone…table…game…

He is Ali..He is watching cowboy

film. Ayşe! Ayşe talk on the phone.

Selma…Look, only look.

Substituted the word “pond”

with “pool” and “watch” with

“look”.


I would create a

story or song

(did not use the


In picture A man

has got two

eyebrows, but in

Picture B he has

got one.

In Picture A,

woman or man has

got a belt, but in

picture B there

isn’t any belt.

Substituted “the

first picture-the

second picture”

with “Picture A

and Picture B”

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would take short

notes. For example,

I would write

“wings and fly” for

birds. Then, I

would say “Birds

have got wings,

they can fly”. Also,

I would prepare a

power point

presentation.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

115

Table 4.28

Bartu’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2

Learning a list of

words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Bartu

Pic 1: The park…Children are playing at

the park and doing ice-cream and hot dog.

An old woman…feed the birds.

Pic 2:

This room is untidy. A ball, poster in this

room. This picture have got a cat and two

fish.

Pic 3: Two children playing game..in home.

One girl…A girl is calling his friend. One

boy is watch the television. One girl watch

outside.

Substituted the word “pond” with

“water”


There are groups:

colours, objects,

days. I would

create a song.

(He was absent in

the lesson when the

grouping strategy

was instructed.

Although he noticed

the groups, he did

not use the grouping

strategy)

One picture, grocer

has got two

eyebrow… Second

picture , grocer

have got…has got a

eyebrow.

In the first picture,

gray man has got a

belt, but in the

second picture this

man hasn’t got a

belt.

Substituted “the

man wearing a grey

dress” with “gray

man”.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would prepare

short notes. For

example I would

write “water” and

say “it lives in the

water.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

As the data revealed from his performance display, Bartu seems to have gained

from the strategy training as well. He successfully substituted the words and phrases he

did not remember or know, without any communication breakdowns. He could explain

the differences between the pictures by substituting longer phrases. For instance, he

could not say “the man behind the goat” or “the man wearing a gray dress”. Instead, he

simply said “the gray man” and went on explaining the differences. The question

regarding vocabulary learning revealed interesting results. Like other students, Bartu

was given a list of words. He could easily notice the word groups in the list. However,

he was absent when the grouping strategy was instructed. He named the groups and said

that he would create a song to study for the words in the list. This result indicates that

although gifted learners tend to use more strategies than other learners who are not

gifted, they need to be instructed language learning strategies so as to make their

116

learning more effective. The potential they have, as in Bartu’s case, should be enhanced

so that they can gain from systematic strategy training.

Table 4.29 demonstrates Nilgün’s data. The data indicate that she has gained

from strategy training since the researcher’s field notes show that she utilised the

strategies in the activities. While describing pictures, she could not remember the word

“untidy” and thus she used the opposite as instructed in the training. She carried out the

activity and made the sentence by saying “not tidy”. In a similar vein, she used “water”

for the words pond and aquarium. She was one of the students to notice the word groups

in the list. Hence, she reported to use the grouping strategy. She could explain the

differences between the pictures accurately, and stated that she would make use of

taking short notes for a presentation.

117

Table 4.29

Nilgün’s Think-aloud Protocol Activity 1


Activity 2

Learning a list of

words

Activity 3

Talking about the

differences

Activity 4

Preparing for a

presentation

Pic 1: It’s a park. There are

Children…Birds…Duck..Four

ducks. They are in the water.

Two boys is playing football.

Pic 2: Room. It’s not tidy. The

cat..on the bed, sleep. Ball is

under the bed. Two fish in the

water. Two pictures on the

wall.

Pic 3: Children in the picture.

Children…girl is..call

telephone. Chidlren…Boy is

watching television. Girl is

out..watching.

Substituted the words “lake

and aquarium” with

“water”

And “untidy” with “ not

tidy”


I would group the

words. There are

colours, days,

animals.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

Boy has got two

eyebrows, but 2

picture boy has got

one eyebrow.

1 picture... man has

got a belt, but 2

picture man hasn’t

got a belt.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

I would take short

notes and make up

longer sentences like

we did in the

activities.

(Used the strategy

instructed)

In the think-aloud protocols, the participants were first asked to talk about the

pictures. They described the pictures by trying to make sentences. Although the

sentences lacked grammatical rules, it was possible to get the main message in their

descriptions. The participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts while they were

working on the tasks. Their responses gave insights regarding the way they handle the

problems they face. Their speaking records reveal the use of the substitution strategy in

118

many tasks. For instance, all of the students easily substituted the words “lake” and

“pond” by saying “the ducks are in the water”. Before they were instructed any

strategies, most of the students tried to find the exact word they wanted to use. When

they could not, they either avoided using these words or asked the teacher to translate.

However, the substitution strategy seems to have helped them to think that it is okay to

use simpler words or to explain things in a different way.

In the second activity, the participants were given a list of words and asked how

they would study to learn or memorize them. The words in the list were: pink, eagle,

Tuesday, monkey, television, wardrobe, elephant, bird, Monday, sofa, bed, Saturday,

pillow, crocodile, bear, panda, table, curtain, black, purple. Those who were instructed

the grouping strategy could easily identify the groups in the list (e.g. Ayhan and Nilgün

noticed the groups at first glance). Hence, they stated that they would group the words

so that they could learn them easily and effectively. Their responses included statements

such as Ercan’s: “If I had not learned the grouping strategy, I would have used writing

down the words several times”. This fact is supported by Bartu’s view who could notice

the groups but pointed that he would not use grouping strategy. He was absent when the

strategy was instructed, so he was not aware that grouping could be a language learning

strategy. All of the participants who said that they would group the words to learn more

easily were also asked why they chose to do so. They all stated that the strategy they

were taught helped them. Hence, their responses to this question indicate that they

utilized the strategies they learnt.

In the third activity, the participants were shown a picture in which they were

asked to talk about two differences. In the first picture, the greengrocer had two

eyebrows whereas he had only one eyebrow in the second one (see Appendix 13).

Another difference was that a man wearing a grey dress was wearing a belt in the first

picture while he had no belt in the second picture. As seen in the tables, the participants’

utterances became sentences much different from their early utterances where they tried

to describe differences with phrases and by pointing at these differences. This activity

also shows that learners made use of the tips they used for talking about differences

between two pictures.

In the last activity of the think-aloud protocols, the researcher asked the

participants about how they would prepare for a presentation about animals. Their

119

answers indicated that the strategies they learned help them while preparing a learning

task.

Findings from the interviews also exhibited results indicating the use of

strategies in their daily lives. All the participants stated that they had never heard about

language learning strategies before they were instructed at BILSEM. In their comments,

they pointed that consciously or unconsciously, they began to make use of the strategies

in their daily life, too. For instance, Beril stated, “The other day I found myself

explaining the word encyclopedia to my dad by using the organizational planning

strategy”. Other comments by the participants revealed that strategies-based instruction

and the activities conducted in the process helped them realize that “English is

something beyond SBS exam” (Gizem), and they can transfer their knowledge of

strategies into other lessons. Nilgün, Ayhan and Ercan highlighted that they transferred

the strategies into other lessons at school. They said they took more organized notes and

made use of these notes in Turkish lessons as well. Some others (Beril, Oğuz, Bartu and

Bertan) stated the importance of the substitution strategy and mentioned the way it

helped them in facilitating the communication process.

Having identified the use of the instructed language learning strategies, the next

research question focused on the effects of the strategies-based instruction on the

participants’ English proficiency.

4.4 Research Question 4: Does strategies-based English instruction have any

effects on gifted learners’ English proficiency?

The effectiveness of any training or treatment requires the evaluation of the level

of success. Therefore, the next question that guided the study was whether strategies-

based English instruction had any effects on gifted learners’ English proficiency.

The participants’ English proficiency was evaluated through the Cambridge

Young Learners Proficiency Test which included reading-writing, speaking, and

listening sections. The test was administered as a pre-test and post-test and included

three levels: Starter, Movers, and Flyers. This study made use of two levels: Starter and

Movers. The reason for utilizing two levels was the assumption that Starter would be

too easy while Flyers would be too challenging for many of the students. The exams

consisted of six parts: Starter reading/writing (25 questions), Starter listening (20

120

questions), Starter speaking (24 points), Movers reading/writing (40 questions), Movers

listening (25 questions), and Movers speaking (24 points) (See Appendix 4). Results

obtained from Starter and Movers levels were evaluated and presented in Table 4.30.

Table 4.30

Proficiency Exam Results (Pre-test and Post-test)

Participant Name

Starter

Listening

(20 Qs)

Starter

Reading

and

Writing

(25 Qs )

Movers

Listening

(25 Qs )

Movers

Reading

(44 Qs)

Starter

Speaking

(24 points)

Movers

Speaking

(24 points)

Bartu

Pre-test 18 25 23 26 16 14

Post-test 19 25 24 33 24 24

Bertan

Pre-test 17

20 14 13 7 10

Post-test 19 21 23 29 16 12

Sait

Pre-test 17 22 17 22 11 9

Post-test 19 24 23 29 14 12

Nilgün

Pre-test 15 21 15 20 7 9

Post-test 18 23 21 28 12 13

Dila

Pre-test 18 18 11 10 18 12

Post-test 19 24 20 23 24 12

Beril

Pre-test 18 23 19 19 13 9

Post-test 20 24 22 27 21 21

Ercan Pre-test 15 14 12 12 7 7

Post-test 19 21 22 21 14 12

Gizem Pre-test 16 23 13 23 13 11

Post-test 17 24 18 28 23 12

Ayhan Pre-test 13 19 12 12 7 8

Post-test 19 20 17 24 13 12

Oğuz Pre-test 19 25 20 25 13 14

Post-test 20 24 23 33 23 24

121

Data collected from the English proficiency exam showed that the participants’

scores revealed an increase in all of the skills evaluated. Pre-test and post-test scores are

displayed in figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1. Pre-test and Post-test Proficiency Exam Scores

As shown in Figure 4.1, more significant results were detected in Movers

listening and Movers reading parts. A plausible explanation for the slight increase in the

starter reading part of the exam is the fact that the mean scores for this part were high at

the beginning ( Pre-test: 21 out of 25 for reading and writing and 16 out of 20 for

listening; Post-test: 23 for reading and writing, 19,3 for listening). As seen in Table

4.30, more increase was observed in the listening part of the exam (see also figure 4.1).

The researcher’s field notes indicate that the participants were stressful because of the

listening part of the exam, since they are not used to having exams in listening. Besides,

many students tried to make a too-detailed analysis of the pictures. For instance, they

could not be sure whether the duck was “in front of” or “next to” the elephant or if the

things on the sink were “boxes” or “bottles”. The most common mistakes were noted to

be resulted from the lack of vocabulary knowledge such as “mat, shell, or cupboard” for

the listening part.

The Movers part of the test was too challenging especially for the 6th graders, as

it included the knowledge of Simple Past Tense and more advanced vocabulary, which

are structures that are not familiar to the participants at that level. Many learners wanted

122

to give up especially during the reading part and a few of the students did so. However,

in the post-test, although they were still unfamiliar with these grammatical structures,

they worked on the test to use clues, and thus the scores indicated an observable

increase.

The speaking part of the exam was evaluated by two researchers using the PALS

rubric (see Appendix 5). The participants’ speaking performance was tape recorded

both at the beginning and at the end of the strategy training process. The rubric

enhanced the evaluation of the speaking performance in terms of task completion,

comprehensibility, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. Participants’

speaking performance displayed the most observable improvement in the post-test.

Researchers evaluating the recordings pointed out that learners became more fluent and

could understand the questions much faster in the post-test records. Yeşim (Researcher

2) indicated that there was a remarkable increase in the vocabulary knowledge of the

students in the post-test. Besides, she thinks learners began to understand more

complicated sentences in the post-test while they needed more simplified language, or

even body language in the pre-test. Çiğdem (Researcher 1) pointed out that learners

began making sentences while their speech was limited with words and phrases in the

pre-test. She also commented on yes-no answers by highlighting that yes-no answers

became longer sentences, with occasional comments included in the post-test. The

researchers also reported that the simplified speech by the teacher conducting the exam

became more complicated, sentences were longer, but the participants’ responses were

more accurate and fluent when compared to the pre-test.

4.4.1. The Participants’ Performance regarding Talking about Pictures before

Strategy Training

Before they were taught any strategies, the students were given some pictures

and asked to talk about the differences between them. The first picture used for this

activity was colorful and easy enough to understand. However, it was detected that

almost all of the students had difficulty while talking about the pictures given. The

second picture was black and white and required more advanced vocabulary and

grammar knowledge. Hence, as the data presented below demonstrate, students had

difficulty in explaining the second picture. This section is committed to the data

123

gathered from students’ speaking performance while talking about the differences

between the pictures.

The first student who participated in the think-aloud protocols was Dila, and she

was asked to talk about the differences between two pictures. Her sentences and

comments on the reasons why she had difficulty are presented in the following table.

Table 4.31

Dila’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

Dila

Picture 1:

Sandwich...Tail...Chair....Book (showing

something but not telling any

difference)..Phone

Picture 2:

Picture 1 in a ....chair....Picture 2 isn’t.

No tail...Picture 1 in.

In picture 1 a window, picture 2 no....

Picture 2 no telephone.

Student’s Comments:

I had difficulty in every part of the activity.

I do not know how to make up sentences.

I do not know how to start.

Picture 2:

In picture 1 a cat, in Picture 2, no cat.

In picture 1..........(pointing)....in Picture 2....

In the picture 1, man ....sit. But Picture 2 man

reading.


This picture is much more difficult!

This activity is very difficult.

Is there a bag here in the woman’s hand, or

is it behind the newspaper?

I do not know how to explain the differences.

As can be concluded from her impoverished sentences and comments about the

activity, Dila had difficulty in describing the pictures in terms of the differences. She

reportedly did not know how to start explaining something or what to say. Besides, she

seemed to be stressed during the activity.

124

Table 4.32

Gizem’s Think-aloud Activity(Talking about Differences)

This....this mouse haven’t tail.

There aren’t a glass.

The two picture. There aren’t a sandwich.

There aren’t phone. There are four apples,

but there are five apples.

Researcher’s Field Notes:

She could explain the differences without

having much difficulty.

Picture...Picture A...This child different

from that child. The man read newspaper,

but the man....sitting...They are read

newspaper, but they are eat ice-cream and

drink coffee.

The woman is carrying bag, but the woman

hasn’t bag.


This activity is more difficult.

I wish I hadn’t come....

I have difficulty in speaking activities.

I don’t know how to say.

In the first picture, Gizem seemed to enjoy the activity and she did not seem to

have too much difficulty. However, in the second picture she detected too many

differences and she had no idea how to explain them. Therefore, she stated that she

wished she had not come. She reported that speaking activities are difficult for them

since they do not have the chance to practice much at school.

Table 4.33 demonstrates Bertan’s performance in the think-aloud protocol.

125

Table 4.33

Bertan’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

Glass...No glass..Picture 2,

sandwich...Book...Corn...Two corn, three corn.

No window...three window, 2 picture two

window. Cell phone...It’s no cell phone.

Student’s Questions:

What are these? Tomatoes or apples?

What is this? A cell phone?

Cat and dog run..in park...picture 1.

Picture 2 a cat.........(avoided saying that

difference).Talks telephone...Picture 1, old

woman....

Could not say “old woman is carrying a bag”

and did not now how to substitute, for example

“the old woman has got a bag”.


I don’t know how to say.

I’m thinking of how to start telling about it.

We can’t practice English at school...


Given the data revealing the use of substitution strategy, Bertan’s early

utterances show that gifted learners try to find the exact translation of more difficult

expressions. For the woman in the picture, Bertan could have said “ she has got a bag”.

However, he tried to find a way to say “the old woman is carrying a bag in her hand”

and did not finish the sentence when he could not say so. Just like other students, he

could not talk about the many other differences in the picture due to his failed attempt at

translating. The following table presents Ercan’s data.

126

Table 4.34

Ercan’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

Phone....Sandwich on table...No, no

sandwich...Corn...No corn...Window..No

window..Three corn, two corn...

It is book, no book.


I cannot make up sentences.

What are these? Corns?

Park scene A...It is a tree.

(the activity was too difficult for him to

make up more sentences)


I can detect all the differences but don’t

know how to say them.

I don’t know how to start. I cannot recall

some of the words.

The activity, especially the second picture, was generally very difficult for all of

the students. However, for Ercan it was too difficult to utter any sentences. He even

forgot about the words he knew. The only thing he was able to say was “It is a tree”.

He stated that he could not be sure how to start explaining something while talking

about the differences. In a similar vein, Nilgün had difficulty in explaining the

differences in the second picture and her performance is displayed in Table 4.35.

Table 4.35

Nilgün’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

Mickey dress... 1 picture two corn but 2 picture

three Mickey has got..hasn’t got tail, but first

picture Mickey has got tail.

(She kept using the word “Mickey” for “mouse”)


I cannot make up sentences.

There is a newspaper in the first picture...There

isn’t a newspaper in the second picture...there is

smoking first picture. There isn’t smoking second

picture. There is first picture climb tree children,

but nothing second picture.



127

Nilgün seemed to enjoy the activity in the first picture, but stated that she had

difficulty in making up sentences. She could not be successful in the second activity

where there were more complicated expressions regarding the differences. She also

complained that the second picture which was black and white was not clear.

Table 4.36 demonstrates Bartu’s performance.

Table 4.36

Bartu’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

This three...but this only two corn.

First gray mouse have a tail, but second

grey mouse haven’t a tail.

First sandwich on the table, on the second

it’s no sandwich.


He could explain the differences without


This man is working, but it’s not. This old

man sitting. This catch the ball and this

catch the ball. Cat and dog isn’t

play..These girls eat but these girls

reading. This man smoking..this man

reading


This activity is very difficult. There are

actions. I don’t know some words (e.g.

knit) and could not remember the word

“picture”.

Bartu relatively had less difficulty in explaining the differences. However, he

found the second picture hard to explain due to vocabulary beyond his knowledge. For

instance, he detected the difference regarding a woman who was knitting, but he had to

avoid talking about that difference because he could not remember the word “knit”.

Lack of vocabulary knowledge in this activity caused many pupils to fail uttering

something. Oğuz, whose English level was detected to be higher than the other students

in the group according to the results of the proficiency test, explained the differences

using longer sentences. His performance is demonstrated in Table 4.37.

128

Table 4.37

Oğuz’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

Two mouse in the tree house…they are

staying..sitting…They eating chips, cake,

and drinking tea. The orange mouse have

got a tea in the picture A, but haven’t got

anything in the picture B. there is three

corn in the picture A, but two corn in the

picture B. A book on the shelf, but the

book not…No shelf in picture B. Picture A

have got three chairs, but the picture B

haven’t got….the sandwich on the table in

picture B, but sandwich not on the table in

the picture B.


He could explain the differences without


The park in the picture A. A young girl

sitting....staying...on a bank....bench... in

the picture, but the picture...old woman..

bench in the picture B. A girl sleeping in

the picture B, but a boy sleeping in picture

B.

The woman is ...................with her baby,

but the woman is running in picture B.

Two girls eating ice-cream and drinking

tea. But the girls are reading magazine in

Picture B. the boy is climbing tree in

picture A, but the boy don’t climbing

anywhere in picture B.

Researcher’s field notes:

-did not know how to say that a woman is

going for a walk with her baby, and could

not substitute it with “a woman is walking

with her baby”.

-could not remember the words “bench,

woman, and bag”


I could not remember easy words such as

woman and bag. I had difficulty in saying

the places of the objects.

As seen in his sentences, Oğuz could explain differences in a more organized

way when compared to other students in the group. However, he could not recall some

words and failed to substitute some easier expressions (e.g. going for a walk or bag).

Table 4.38 presents Beril’s performance.

129

Table 4.38

Beril’s Think-aloud Protocol (Talking about Differences)

Grey mouse hasn’t a tail. Hasn’t book

on… the shelf. There is no sandwich on

the table. There is mobile phone….at

home. There are two corns at..picture B.

But there are two corn at picture A. There

are three window in picture B…A, but

there are two windows in picture B.


Asked for the word “shelf”

Although making up sentences became

more difficult when she was asked to add

picture names, she could explain the

differences.

The ball is……..

A boy is sleeping at picture A,, but picture

B he go to schoolJ. Woman sleeping at

picture A, but picture B, she go to her

house. … There is young woman at

picture A, but….Old man looking at the

park picture A, but picture B he reading

newspaper.


Could not say “this boy has the ball, but in

the second picture the other boy has it”.

Thus, she avoided talking about that

difference.

Student’s Comments

“This activity is very difficult!”.

Oğuz, Bartu, and Beril performed relatively better in this activity. All of the

students first started by telling the differences without referring the picture names.

When they were reminded that they should explain in a way that the pictures cannot be

seen by the teacher, all of them found it hard to make longer sentences. Almost all of

the students found the talking about pictures activity very challenging. This activity

showed that the participants had difficulty in explaining the differences. Their

expressions regarding the difficulties they had demonstrated that they were trying to

find the exact translation of some expressions, not paraphrasing them, which caused the

participants’ failure in the activity. The following tables demonstrate the participants’

performance before and after the strategies-based instruction.

4.4.2 The Participants’ Performance in Pre-test and Post-test (Talking about

Differences between the Pictures)

The section which is related to talking about pictures in the proficiency test

revealed the most remarkable improvement (see Appendix 12 for the picture). As seen,

130

in Table 4.39 and 4.40, despite the grammatical mistakes, the telegraphic utterances

turned into longer, more meaningful sentences. In the pre-test, a great many of the

learners explained the differences by pointing at them and using single words or

phrases. However, they began to include more information such as the picture number

they were talking about in the post-test. They were also found to make use of strategies

such as substitution and organizational planning in the post-test. The participants’

speaking recordings in relation to talking about differences are demonstrated in two

tables below. The first table (Table 4.39) presents sentences uttered by Sait, Ayhan,

Oğuz, Ercan and Gizem while talking about differences in the pre-test and post-test.

Table 4.39 A Comparison of Students’ Performance in Pre-test and Post-test BEFORE TRAINING

(Pre-test) AFTER TRAINING

(Post-test)

Sait

- Cloud- Sun - Cat-Bird - Red-Yellow - Chip- Hamburger. - Three foot

- Picture 1 have got red jacket, but picture 2 have got yellow jacket.

- Picture 1, man eating the hamburger, Picture 2 man eating the chips.

- Picture 1, weather is cloudy. Picture 2, weather is sunny

- Picture 1, alien has got three legs. Picture 2, alien has got four legs.

- Picture 1 have got bird, but Picture 2 have got cat.

Ayhan - Red-Yellow - Hamburger- Potato - Three legs, four legs - Sunny, bluudy. - Cat-Bird

- He eat potato in Picture 1. - This is bird on the bank, this is cat on the bench. - Picture 1 is cloudy, Picture 2 is sunny - Jacket’s colour red, jacket’s colour yellow. - Robot has got three legs, robot has got four legs.

Oğuz

- Jacket colour… Red-yellow - Animals…Dog-cat - Boy eating…Hamburger and.. - Sunny-Cloudy

- The weather is cloudy in first picture, but the weather is sunny in second picture.

- The boy is eating hamburger in first picture, but same boy eating chips in second picture.

- A bird on the bench in first picture, but the cat on the bench in the second picture.

- The sweater colour is red in first picture, but same sweater is yellow in second picture.

- The alien has got three legs in first picture, but the alien has got four legs in second picture.

Ercan

- Red- yellow - Rainy…. - Cat-bird - Hamburger-chips - Three legs-four legs -

- In picture 2, jacket is yellow, first picture, red. - In the one picture, children next to bird. In the

two picture, children next to cat. - In the one picture children eats hamburger. In the

two picture children eats chips. - In the one picture robot has got three legs, in the

two picture robot has got four legs.

Gizem

- He is eat hamburger – He is eat spaghetti - Coat is red- Coat is yellow - This is bird-This is cat - Cloudy-sun - Three legs-four legs

- Child’s jacket is red in Picture 1, but child’s jacket is yellow in Picture 2.

- Alien has got three legs in the Picture1, but alien has got four legs in the Picture 2.

- Weather is cloudy in Picture 1, but weather is sunny in Picture 2.

- Child is eating hamburger in Picture 1, but child eating chips in Picture 2.

- There is bird in the Picture 1, but there is cat in the Picture 2.

131

As seen in Table 4.39, the participants’ sentences in the pre-test were limited to

words and phrases and they explained the differences by pointing at the pictures.

However, their sentences become longer and more understandable after the training.

During the post-test, they gave the number of picture they are talking about and used

connectors such as and and but. Although the sentences displayed syntactic errors, they

were more comprehensible than the ones in the pre-test. Table 4.40 presents the

speaking performance of Dila, Bartu, Beril, Bertan, and Nilgün.

132

Table 4.40

A Comparison of Students’ Performance in Pre-test and Post-test (Continued)

BEFORE TRAINING (Pre-test)

AFTER TRAINING (Post-test)

Dila

- Bird - In Picture 1 cloudy, Picture 2 it’s sunny. - Eating hamburger- eating chip - The robot has got three legs, the robot has

got four legs.

- In Picture 1, there is a bird, in Picture 2 there is a cat.

- In Picture 1, a boy eatinh hamburger, but in Picture 2 boy eating chips.

- In Picture 1 coat is red, in Picture 2 coat is yellow.

- In Picture 1 it is cloudy, Picture 2 it’s sunny.

- Alien has got three legs, but in Picture 2 alien haven’t got…has got four legs.

Bartu

- His jacket is red, but his jacket is yelow. - This picture have a bird, but this have a

cat. - Weather is bad, the weather is goog. - The boy eat the hamburger, but this boy

eat the…potato. - It have…three leg, but it have four legs.

- In first picture, the weather is cloudy. In the second picture weather is sunny.

- In first picture jacket is red, but in second picture jacket is yellow.

- In first picture alien has got three legs but second picture alien has got four legs.

- A bird in first picture… but a bird isn’t in the second picture. A cat in the second picture.

- In the first picture the boy eating hamburger. In second picture the boy eating potatoes.

Beril

- Cat…bird - Cloudy..sun - Red..yellow - Hamburger and fries - Three and four

- The coat is red in Picture A, but it’s yellow in Picture B.

- It’s a bird in Picture A, but it’s a cat in Picture B.

- Alien has got three legs in Picture A, but in Picture B there are four legs.

- In Picture B, cloudy…no! Picture A cloudy. In Picture B..sunny

- Children eat hamburger and he is very fat. In Picture B, he is eating fries and he is fatJ

Bertan

- Cat and….. - Three leg-four leg - It’s hamburger and potato chips - Yellow jacket-red jacket (can’t recall the words about the weather)

- The alien has got three legs in Picture 1 and the alien has got four legs in Picture 2.

- The boy eats hamburger in Picture 1. They boy eats chip in Picture 2.

- The bird…on the bench in Picture 1 and the cat on the bench in Picture 2.

- Red jacket on the bench in Picture 1, yellow jacket on the bench in Picture 2.

- Weather like cloudy in Picture 1 and the weather is like sunny in Picture 2.

Nilgün

-Cat… -Coat - Sunny - Four legs…. three legs - Hamburger….Potatoes

She was not present in the activity due to her overloaded schedule preparing for the exam.

133

As demonstrated in the tables above (Table 4.39 and Table 4.40), the strategy

training revealed a positive improvement in the students’ speaking performance

according to the data collected from the pre-test and post-test. However, the

participants’ language proficiency was not evaluated only through the Cambridge

Young Learners Proficiency Test. Their utterances were recorded during some of the

activities in the strategy learning process. The following sections present excerpts from

the learners’ speaking records in various activities.

4.4.3. Further Evidence regarding the Participants’ Success in Various Activities

This section is devoted to the participants’ recorded performance in speaking

activities. The following sub-titles were used with a view to presenting the findings in a

more organized way:

Findings regarding Describing Things

Findings regarding Substitution

Findings regarding Note-taking

Findings regarding Organizational Planning

Findings regarding Describing Things

The participants were asked to describe things before they were taught any

strategies which would make describing easier. Depending on the number of pupils

present in the class, the participants worked in pairs or in groups. They tried to explain

the words in their list to the other group (see Appendix 14 for the sample worksheet).

The following excerpts present their speaking performance without using any strategy

helping them.

134

Table 4.41

Pre-strategy Speaking Records for Describing Things INTERNET

S1 : On the chat…. Computer S2 : Internet S1 : Yes

HAIR S1:On your head S2 :Hat S1:No. Curly, straight S2:Hair S1:Yes

CITY S1:İstanbul is… S2:Crowded? S1:No.. Eighty one in Turkey S2:…….. S1:Eighty-one S2:Ok…City S1:Yes!

EGG S1:Chicken S2:Egg

BAG

S1:School……….. S2:Bag S1:Yes

NOSE S1:It’s on the head. S2:People. S1:What? S2:Hat? S1:No. S2:Hair? (mp) S1:No. S2:It’s between eyes and mouth. S1:Nose? S2:Yes.

BEACH S1:It’s a sea S2:…… S1:It’s yellow or brown S2:…. S1:You can say it’s next to the sea. S2:Crocodile S1:PASS

HAIR S1:It’s ‘’on’’ the head. S2:Eye? (mp) S1:No. S2:Brain? S1:T: He says ‘’on’’ the head, not ‘’in’’ S2:Eyes? S1:No.

PASS

SOFA

S1:We sit it. S2:Chair S1:No chair S2:Armchair S1:No S2:We on sit yani S1:More clues ( teacher) S2:It’s living room… S1:PASS

AIRPORT S1:On the plane S2:……. S1:Plane S2:……. S1:Plane land….plane are go here S2:…….. S1:PASS

TOOTHPASTE

S1:It’s on the toothbrush S2:Brush S1:And we brush teeth S2:………. S1:PASS

BEACH S1:They near in the sea S2:………. S1:Summer S2:It’s near the sea S1:Ah! I know, but…… S2:PASS

EGG S1:We are eat … it chicken S2:…. S1:Chicken … farm … eat S2:We eat … chicken S1:Egg

SNAKE

S1:Long S2:Snake S1:Yes

NURSE S1:Woman doctor S2:Sorry? S1:Woman doctor S2:Nurse S1:Yes

CITY S1:It’s big bla bla bla S2:Elephant? S1:It’s bla bla bla S2:… S1:Istanbul, Mersin, Adana, Ankara. S2:City?

135

It was evidenced that for some items, the participants found their own ways of

describing the word (e.g. internet, egg, nurse, city, and snake). However, for some

others, they did not know what to do and just had to skip by saying “pass” (e.g. sofa,

airport, toothpaste, and beach). As seen in the table, their descriptions displayed many

syntactic and semantic errors. Having identified the areas of difficulty and the way

learners handle them, the participants were instructed a strategy called Organizational

Planning in which they explained the words in the list in a more organized way,

sometimes by giving examples. Samples from their utterances are displayed in Table

4.42.

Table 4.42

Post Strategy Speaking Records for Describing Things MILK

S1:It’s a drink. We drink in breakfast. It’s white. S2:Milk? S1:Yes.

SHARK S1:It’s an animal. It’s big. S2:… S1:It lives in the sea. S2:Shark? S1:Yes.

SPAGHETTI S1:It’s a food. It’s long and thin. S2:… Spaghetti? S1:Yes.

GOOGLE S1:It’s search motor site. S2:Google. S1:Yes.

RABBIT S1:It’s an animal. It’s white. S2:… S1:It likes carrot. S2:Rabbit? S1:Yes.

SNOW S1:It’s a cold and white. S2:.. Ice? S1:No. White. S2:Snow? S1:Yes.

CINEMA

S1:We can watch film in this place. S2:Cinema? S1:Yes.

UMBRELLA

S1:We take it rainy days. S2:Umbrella? S1:Yes.

TEA

S1:It’s a drink. It’s brown. It drinks at S2:breakfast. S1:Tea? S2:Yes.

ELEPHANT S1:It’s an animal. It’s a big, Grey. S2:Elephant? S1:Yes.

ROSE S1:It’s plant. S2:… S1:Plant. It’s a flower. It is red. S2:Rose? S1:Yes.

OLD S1:Opposite of young? S2:Old? S1:Yes.

SUMMER S1:It’s a season. Hot. S2:Summer? S1:Yes.

FISH S1:It’s an animal. It can swim. It likes sea. S2:Fish? S1:Yes.

FOREST S1:An animal lives in. It has trees. Lots of trees. S2:Forest? S1:Yes.

HOUSE S1:It has rooms. S2:House? S1:Yes.

ZOO S1:Animals live in this place. S2:… S1:We can visit in. S2:Zoo! S1:Yes.

136

ELEPHANT S1:It’s an animal. It’s very big. It’s gray. S2:Elephant? S1:Yes.

SPIDER S1:It’s insect… S2:…. S1:It has got 8 legs. S2:Spider? S1:Yes.

BED S1:It’s on the sleep… Oh no… Sleep on it. S2:… S1:It’s an object. S2:Bed?

ROSE S1:It’s red. Woman like it. S2:… S1:It’s red… yellow or white. It’s a flower. S2:… S1:Flower? S2:Yes, but the word is not ‘’flower’’. S1:Rose? S2:Yes.

SNAKE S1:It’s animal. It’s dangerous. S2:… S1:It’s slow. It is very long. Snake? S2:Yes.

SHARK S1:It’s an animal. It’s very dangerous, big fish. S2:… Shark? S1:Yes.

As seen in the examples of water, elephant, fish, rabbit, tea, and milk, students

used the strategy they were instructed. As taught, they began from the most general

characteristic of the word explained and moved to the details afterward. This made their

descriptions more comprehensible and fluent. This finding is supported by the duration

of the recording. Before the strategy training, they could explain 18 words in 15 minutes

while their performance was doubled after training, with 15 words in 7 minutes. The

researcher’s field notes regarding this activity report the following observation:

“In the first activity conducted before strategy instruction, only one student

from each group was able to all the descriptions. Other students, whose

English level was poorer, rarely uttered anything. However, after strategy

training, students who remained silent before actively participated this

time”.

The participants’ comments on the usefulness of the strategy revealed a similar

result. Ercan points out that “ I could not utter anything before, but today I explained

nearly half of the words myself”. Dila expressed that her group could explain more

words despite the limited time they had in the second activity. All of the participants

stated that they would like to play the description game again and those whose English

level was higher wanted to play Taboo in English.

In this activity, the students improved their skills for describing something in

English. Hence, apart from the strategy they were instructed, they used other ways such

as using the opposite of the word (e.g. old), and eliciting answers by questions (e.g.

137

postman, hospital, and hamburger, etc ). Therefore, the following strategy is

substitution in which learners were taught that they could explain words they do not

remember or know in different ways.

Findings regarding Substitution

The participants were introduced to the importance of substituting words and the

ways in which it could help them in various activities. Table 4.43 presents their

responses regarding the way they substituted the words.

Table 4.43

The Participants’ Performance in Substituting Words

EASY

-not difficult

-not hard

- opposite of

hard

HEAVY

-not light

- opposite of

light

NOISY

-not quiet

-not silent

-classroom rules:

don’t make ……

CROWDED

-many people

-a lot of people, for

example China

HARD

-not soft

-not easy

-opposite of

huge

WILD

-opposite of pet

-for example;

tigers, lions,

sharks, etc.

BALD

-no hair

-haven’t hair

HUGE

-very big

-not tiny

EXPENSIVE

-not cheap

-opposite of cheap

-rich people buy

…..things

FURIOUS

-very angry

-no relax

-very very angry

TINY

-very small

-not huge

-not big

DELICIOUS

-food, but very

good food,

hmmmmm

-I like the food

because it is …..

FREE

-do not need

money to

buy/pass

-no money

-not expensive,

no money

UPSET

-not smiling

-not happy

-haven’t got

money, friend,

- sad

-crying baby or

people

FREEZING

-very cold

-not very cold and

not very hot

- between hot and

cold

-not hot not cold

ATTRACTIVE

-very handsome/

beautiful

- very beautiful girl

or woman

-opposite of ugly

-for example

Shakira

JOYFUL

-not sad

-not serious

-for example;

Pollyanna

EXHAUSTED

- people work

very much and

they feel …

- very tired

The participants began to expand their definitions of words by using antonyms,

synonyms, and by giving examples. This knowledge of different explanations helped

learners enhance the communication process after training. Different examples of

substituted expressions were presented in Section 4.3. Data gathered from other data

138

collection tools also revealed that using English to describe or substitute for other

English words helped learners to overcome communication difficulties in other

activities, which contributed to their success in English. More evidence presented below

was obtained from the note-taking strategy.

Findings regarding Note-taking

The participants made use of the Note-taking strategy in listening, speaking, and

writing activities. When this activity was first introduced, many students thought that

they would not be able to do it. However, with the help of the Prediction strategy, they

became familiar with the structures and took notes successfully. Then, they were asked

to make up sentences using these notes.

The participants took notes about a listening text in which there was information

about people at an international party. The text included sentences such as “Hi, My

name is Belinda. I am 24 years old. I am female from Brazil. I am a photographer. I like

talking about children, football and music. I don’t like talking about Argentina. I greet

people by shaking hands”. While listening to this information related to other people as

well, students took notes in tables as follows:

Table 4.44

Sample Note-taking Activity

Name Sex Job Age Country Likes Dislikes Greeting

Belinda F Photographer 44 Brazil Children

Football

Music

Argentina

Politics

Shake

hands

Rashad M Engineer 24 India Cultural

traditions

- Shaking

hands

William M Engineer 31 England Sports

and

travel

Talk

about

money

and

politics ,

gossip

Shaking

hands

139

Then, the activity which was originally prepared as a listening activity was

turned into a speaking activity. This time, students used the short notes they took to

make up sentences. They also filled in the notes chart to introduce themselves. They

made up sentences using the short notes they took. The table reportedly guided them

while making up sentences. To expand this activity, the participants were introduced a

more advanced organizational planning strategy. Their first sentences using the table

given above and more advanced sentences using organizational planning were as

follows:

Oğuz: My name is Oğuz. I’m male from Turkey. I’m 13 years old. I’m student. I

like soccer, food. I dislike gambling, smoking. I greet people shaking hands

Bartu: I’m from Turkey. My name is Bartu. I’m male. I’ m 13 years old. I’ m

student. I like sports I dislike gossip. I greet people by shaking hands.

Sait: My name is Sait. I’m male. I’m student. I like football, I don’t like

volleyball I greet shaking hands

Bertan: My name is Bertan. I’m 11 years old. I’m male, I’m from Turkey. I like

playing football, volleyball and chess. I don’t like snakes. I shaking hands I greet people

by shaking hands.

Gamze: I’m Gamze. I’m 13. I’m female. I like arts and shopping. I dislike

Turkish and history. I dislike gossip. I greet people shaking hands. I’m from Turkey.

Ayhan: My name is Ayhan. I’m male. I’m 13 Years Old. I Like Football,

Volleyball. I dislike Turkish lesson.

Findings Regarding Organizational Planning

The participants were instructed how to use the organizational planning strategy

in which they made use of the short notes they took so as to make up longer and more

meaningful sentences. Their speech became more fluent, which contributed to their

success especially in the speaking activities. Table 4.45 demonstrates the data gathered

from the speaking recordings during the activity. As seen in Table 4.45, the

participants’ utterances seem to demonstrate improvement both in quality and quantity.

Besides, the researcher’s field notes indicate that the students found talking about

themselves very easy when they used this strategy. Almost all of them reported to feel

140

good because they managed to sound fluent while saying the sentences presented in the

table.

Table 4.45

The Participants’ Utterances using Organizational Planning Strategy

Bertan: I am Bertan. I’m 11 years old. I’m from Turkey. I am

a student. I can play football, guitar, and basketball.

My school is Mimar Kemal Primary School. My

favourite colour is blue. My favourite team is

Galatasaray. I like playing guitar and playing

football. My hair colour is black and eye colour

brown. My favourite lesson is English. My brother

name is Tarık, mother Aliye and father Hakan.

Sait: My name is Sait. I’m eleven years old. I’m from

Turkey. My hair is black. My eye colour is brown.

My shoe size is 38. My favourite team is

Galatasaray. My favourite lessons are math and

English. I’m a student.

Ayhan: My name is Ayhan. I am thirteen years old. I’m from

Niğde, Turkey. My hair colour black and eye colour

brown. My favourite lesson math. My favourite

colours is red and yellow. My favourite team

Galatasaray. My shoe size is 37. I’m student. I like

football. My school name Malazgirt Primary School.

My primary school teacher’s name is Zehra. I can ride

a bike.

Bartu: I am male from Turkey. My name is Bartu. I am

thirteen years old. I’m a student. I like computers. I

don’t like cigarette. I greet people by shaking hands

and nodding. I have short wavy hair. My favourite

computer program is dreamer. I haven’t got brothers

and sister. My shoe size is 37. I haven’t got sense of

responsibility. My primary school teacher is Zeynep.

Oğuz: I’m male in Turkey. I’m Oğuz. I’m 13 years old. I’m

a student at Gazi Primary School. I like swim and

exciting books. I dislike coffee and stopping. I greet

people by nodding and shaking hands. I have got

short brown hair and brown eyes. I’m always smile. I

can swim and reading books. My favourite lesson is

English of course! I have sense of responsibility. I

want to be engineer in the future. I like swim, read

books, study problems. My shoe size is 37. My

primary school teacher’s name is Fatma. I have got a

sister. (By saying “I don’ like stopping” he meant he

liked studying).

Beril:

Hello, my name is Beril. I’m female from Turkey. I’m

eleven years old. I’m a student. I like music, piano,

and watching TV. I dislike horror film and cigarette.

I am clever and hardworking. I’m perfectionist. My

primary school teacher’s name is Defne. I want to be

a psychologist. I have got long curly brown hair and

brown eyes. I can play piano and speaking Turkish.

141

The participants’ level of success was mainly evaluated through the Cambridge

Young Learners proficiency test. Increase in the pre-test and post-test results clearly

demonstrates that the participants performed much better in the post-test than they did

in the pre-test. The most remarkable improvement was detected in the Movers listening

and Movers reading parts. A plausible explanation for the slight increase in the Starter

exam is that the participants’ levels were high enough in pre-test. However, they were

found to perform much better in the speaking components of both exams (Starter and

Movers).

In addition to the data obtained from the proficiency test, speaking records of

activities indicating an increase in student performance were presented in Section 4.4.3.

This further evidence pertaining to the participants’ performance demonstrates that their

language proficiency improved both in quality and quantity. The following section

demonstrates findings regarding the participants’ perceptions of strategies-based

language instruction.

4.5 Research Question 5: How do Gifted Learners Perceive Strategies-Based

English instruction?

The last question of the research aimed at identifying the participants’ views

pertaining to the strategies-based language instruction they were provided with. The

data regarding this part of the research were obtained through group discussions,

interviews and written accounts of the students. Each week, the participants were asked

whether the strategies instructed were helpful or if they could transfer the knowledge of

the strategies into other lessons or activities. This section presents the data obtained

from these data collection tools.

The participants expressed that they were not instructed any language learning

strategies in the language programs they had attended so far. As to those who

unknowingly utilized the strategies before the training, they reportedly did not know

that the things they were doing were strategies for language learning. The participants’

perceptions regarding the language learning strategies instructed are summarized in

Table 4.46 and Table 4.47.

142

Table 4.46

Perceptions About the Language Learning Strategies Instructed Strategy Purpose Students’ Perceptions Where else can it be

used? Planning &Setting Goals

To help learners set goals for the tasks and for learning English in general

We think in an organized way We have clear goals

-While setting goals for the program we attend -In other activities

Prediction

To help learners get prepared for the task they will work on

-I learned new words -I could concentrate much better -I could understand very well -The activity became so easy, and the words were more understandable

- Reading activities -Speaking tasks

Selective Attention

To focus on the missing information

-Focusing on one thing helped me a lot, I could understand easily -I was less stressful -It was easier than I thought

Speaking activities Reading materials – comprehension questions

Using Background Knowledge

To help learners focus on the questions to guess about the type of information needed

-We focused on wh- questions and type of answers to be given

-In speaking activities -In SBS exam -In reading comprehension questions

Grouping

-to introduce learners a more organized way of learning vocabulary

-We put the words in the same group in a category.

-While learning and memorising new words

Organizational Planning for Writing and Speaking activities (Planning Composition)

To introduce how to make use of short notes to produce long sentences in speaking tasks

-I made up sentences only by looking at the short notes I took -I could speak much faster than I thought -My speech was very well-organized, I did not forget anything

-In many speaking activities -While preparing performance tasks at school

Dividing Words into Parts to find their Meanings

To find out meanings of words by dividing them into parts

-It was very easy and enjoyable to find the relationship between the words -It was fun, we cut the words and found 2-3 words

-while producing new words -in guessing the meanings of words -in multiple choice questions

143

Table 4.46 (continued) Strategy Purpose Students’ Perceptions Where else can it be

used? Substitution

To help learners to go on the activity by using similar words instead of the ones they do not recall

-We used antonyms, synonyms, and we gave examples and tried to make descriptions

-in speaking activities, while communicating in English -in writing activities, while writing compositions

Finding Rhymes

To make use of rhyming words with a view to learning new vocabulary and pronunciation of rhyming words

-I can remember the meanings of words, it’s fun -This strategy helps me about pronunciation

-in Turkish lessons - in learning prefixes/suffixes and producing new words -while memorizing poems -in vocabulary learning

Taking Notes (for listening and speaking)

To teach students to take short notes and use these notes in different activities

-I took short notes, only the information needed. Then, we made up sentences using these notes. It was easier than I thought -I can visualize this table in other speaking activities.

-In writing activities -In speaking activities -While preparing for a presentation in English

Describing Things To help learners make descriptions of words in English

-I could explain words by starting from general characteristics and moving more detailed features. Organizational planning is easy and enjoyable

-In speaking activities -In writing activities

Talking about pictures and differences between them

To help learners describe things in pictures and talk about differences between them

-We described pictures by adding the number of picture we are talking about

-In speaking and writing activities

4.5.1. Perceptions about Setting Goals, Planning, Selective Attention, and Prediction

Strategies

At the beginning of the strategies-based instruction, the participants were asked

to set goals for learning English. Thus, they identified their short-term and long-term

goals, as well as evaluating their current language level and the level they need to

achieve. Findings obtained from this activity were presented together with the findings

from the first research question (see Section 4.1). As previously mentioned, the

participants were found to be well aware of the fact that they are better at English than

many other students, but considering the level they want to achieve in English and the

144

characteristics of a perfect learner in their minds, they think they are not good enough.

Besides, they would like to achieve the highest level possible. Their long-term goals,

such as studying abroad, visiting different countries and finding a good job, make them

believe that they need to achieve the highest level possible.

The participants found the Setting Goals and Planning strategies helpful in that

they helped them think in an organized way. As Dila stated “Sometimes when I start

doing an activity, especially in writing, I find myself writing the things actually I did not

mean. Thus, I forget the things I needed to write. Then I say “I wish I had written bla

bla , too. Planning strategy makes me think in an organized way and remember what I

should do, no regrets… ”.

The majority of the participants found the listening and speaking part of the pre-

test very hard. They were also observed to be very stressful because they needed to

understand listening material. Thus, the participants were instructed the Prediction and

Selective Attention strategies through the “Bug Café” activity.

In the Prediction strategy, the students tried to make intelligent guesses about

the learning material by using clues, such as pictures and sentences, in the worksheet.

For instance, looking at the title Café, they predicted words about the things they can eat

or drink at a café. They predicted food and drinks that can be found in a menu as well as

some phrases and conversation patterns that may take place. The participants reported to

find the strategy very helpful in that it helped them become familiar with the vocabulary

needed in the activity. Ercan stated, “It was so easy for me to understand the words we

predicted”. Many other students agreed with this statement.

In the Selective Attention strategy, the participants were reminded not to try to

understand everything about the listening texts, but to focus on the information needed.

Hence, they filled in the blanks in the worksheet and actively participated in the

activity. They expressed that the strategy was helpful in that they did not panic to try to

understand everything. This statement was supported by the researchers’ field notes, as

it was noted that the learners actively participated in the activity. As seen in the table,

the students stated that they could concentrate better, and understand very well. They

also reported that the activity they first thought difficult became much easier and the

words in the activity more understandable. The participants were found to think that

145

both strategies could be helpful in speaking activities, in predicting what the other

person would say and in focusing on the specific information during conversation.

4.5.2. Perceptions about Dividing Words into Parts, Grouping, and Substitution

Strategies

The participants were instructed one of the vocabulary learning strategies. In the

first phase of the strategy instruction, they were asked to group a list of words

consisting of household items. The pupils grouped the vocabulary according to their

usage (four pupils), how they work: electronics or not (four pupils), where the items are

used (eight pupils), and the importance of items in their own life (one pupil). The

different categories used by the pupils demonstrated that each person had their unique

way of learning. Some students drew diagrams or tables so as to make remembering

easier for them. All the students reported that they found the Grouping strategy helpful

and indicated to have used it in their English homework at school. This strategy

revealed interesting results in that those who were not instructed such strategy or those

who were absent when this strategy was introduced could not guess that grouping could

be used as a vocabulary learning strategy.

Gifted learners enjoy playing with words and discovering the relationship

between them. As pointed out by Piirto (1999), they engage in intellectual play and

enjoy puns. Therefore, the participants were instructed two strategies that they would

find helpful: Finding Rhymes and Dividing Words into Parts to find their Meaning.

While introducing the strategy of Finding Rhymes, the teacher first instructed

common rhymes, such as “What a pity for a kitty living in a city”, “I wish I were fish in

your dish” or “See you later alligator, after a while crocodile”. Students pointed that

these examples were fun to learn. They did their best to find out more about rhyming

words. Although it was easy for them to find two or more rhyming words such as “bat,

hat, cat, mat”, “house-mouse”, “cry-fly” etc, they had difficulty in placing them in the

right place in sentences.

However, for some students (Beril, Bartu, Oğuz) this activity turned out to be an

invaluable opportunity to show their creativity. Students came up with sentences such as

“It’s not hard when you have a credit card”, “I had a dog, but I lost it in the fog”, “It’s

always sunny when you have a lot of money”, “I want to eat a toast, how much does it

146

cost?”. The participants with poorer English proficiency (Ercan, Ayhan) stated that

rhyming strategy helped them to pronounce words accurately. They gave examples

from the word couples such as “goat-boat”, “ball-tall”, “word-bird”. The participants’

comments during the interviews indicated that they began to make use of the rhyming

strategy in their learning. Dila pointed that “In my English lessons at school, I have a

long list of words to be memorized each week. I bring the rhyming words together. This

makes my learning fun and easy”. In a similar vein, Beril stated that she really enjoyed

rhyming words and even found them funny. “It’s so funny. Punch, lunch, crunchJ I like

it teacher. I always look for new ones”. Nilgün said, “Rhyming helped me learn new

words. For example, I remember the word “log” from the picture –a frog on a log-”. As

a result, the participants’ comments pertaining to the Rhyming strategy indicate that they

find the strategy not only helpful but also enjoyable. Moreover, their comments

regarding the use of strategy made it clear that they began to make use of this strategy in

their learning.

Another strategy related to words was Dividing Words into Parts to find their

Meanings. The participants were first instructed to think of the relationship between the

words in compound nouns. Some examples were: armchair, blackboard, sunflower,

schoolbag, handbag, football, and basketball. Once they could understand that

combination of words can make up a new word, they were given more examples such as

waterfall, milkman, snowman, and shopping mall. Having discussed the way these

words were connected, the participants began to find their own examples some of which

are bathroom, toothpaste, living room, bedroom, milkshake, basketball, and headache.

Then, the students were instructed common prefixes and suffixes as a follow-up

activity. They were asked to produce new words using prefixes and suffixes such as

“re-", “-er”, “-less”, “-ness”, “mis-“, “-able”, etc. The participants found this strategy

very helpful and enjoyable since they liked finding two or more words by dividing them

into meaningful parts. They think this strategy can be helpful while guessing the

meaning of words, making up new words, or producing new words using prefixes and

suffixes. They also believe that the strategy can help them in multiple-choice questions

as they can make intelligent guesses about unknown words.

Gifted learners are good language users that can be considered advanced when

compared with their peers. However, they may be demotivated when they are not able

147

to achieve the same success in the target language. For instance, most of the time they

try to insist on finding the exact translation of an advanced word, which hinders the

communication process or makes them fail while completing an activity. Therefore, the

participants were instructed the Substitution strategy. This strategy was introduced after

the strategy that aimed to help learners about describing things. Students were told that

they could use similar/easier words or opposites when they cannot recall a certain word.

This way they would not be stuck while communicating. The participants’ Substitution

examples were presented in the section dealing with their success with the help of the

strategies (see Section 4.4.3).

The participants described their efforts for substitution by saying that they used

antonyms, synonyms, gave examples, or used similar words to substitute words. They

reported that they found the activity very helpful and would like to use it in the future.

The participants also think that such a strategy will help them a lot especially in

speaking activities. While it is not easy to observe the use of many strategies, the

Substitution strategy was relatively easier to detect. The participants were found to have

made use of the Substitution strategy in other activities that were carried out. Some

examples were presented in the previous sections, especially in the post-test speaking

records and think-aloud activities.

The participants stated that they found the strategy very helpful and some of

them (Beril, Ercan and Bartu) pointed out that it was the most effective strategy they

learned. The researcher also noted that there were less unfinished sentences or

communication breakdowns in the post-test. One of the researchers evaluating the

participants’ performance wrote, “It was unbelievable to see that students try to go on

speaking in the post-test records unlike the pre-test when they kept silent in many

questions”.

4.5.3. Perceptions about Taking Notes

The participants were introduced a strategy that would be helpful in many

activities carried out both at BILSEM and in the other institutions they attend. They

were taught the importance of taking short notes and then making use of the notes they

took. In the “World Culture International Party” activity, the participants were asked to

fill in blanks in a table. For instance, when they heard the sentence “I greet people by

148

shaking hands”, they write “shaking hands” in the greeting column. The activity sheet

included columns in which the students were asked to write the names, age, gender,

likes and dislikes of the people.

Having filled in the blanks by writing short notes, the students were asked to

make sentences using the notes they took. Some examples of the participants’ utterances

were presented in Table 4.45. After the activity, participants stated that they could

easily introduce themselves using the table in the writing activity. Oğuz pointed out that

they “became familiar with the sentence structures in the listening part of the activity.”

Therefore, when they talked about the characteristics of the people in the list, it became

easier and more organized to talk about themselves. Ayhan indicated, “If you had told

me to introduce myself without using any strategies or tables like this, I would think that

I would not be able to do it. But this strategy made my job easier.” Similarly, Gizem

stated, “If it wasn’t for this table, I would surely forget what I wanted to say, as it

always happens because of my excitement. It was a very easy activity this time”.

Having produced sentences about themselves using this activity, the students

then were encouraged to use the Organizational Planning strategy for speaking. They

were handed out the strategy figure to write about short phrases that were going to turn

into long sentences in the speaking activity. This time, they wrote more about their

characteristics, giving details. With the help of the strategies that were gradually getting

more difficult, students reportedly felt surprised at how fluently they could speak. This

statement is validated by Bertan’s comment, “I could say these sentences fluently, as I

have always dreamt. The little notes helped me to make up sentences and tell them

without needing to stop what to say next”. Oğuz also agreed that the strategy “made the

activity much easier and helped them speak faster”. All the participants found the

strategy very helpful and indicated to use it in the future. Interview data also support

this finding. For instance, Nilgün reported to use the note-taking strategy in other

lessons at school.

4.5.4. Perceptions about Describing Things and Pictures

Another strategy that was found both enjoyable and helpful by many students

was the one related to Describing Things. The participants were given a list of words in

boxes and asked to describe them to the other group. This activity also helped learners

149

to practice numbers and letters, which are usually problematic when used separately.

The participants first described the words in the list and told the number of the box, e.g.

M5, so that the students in the other group could write it in the right place. This activity

was carried out before and after strategy training. The first time it was carried out, the

participants’ utterances lacked many essential syntactic and semantic elements. Besides,

the researcher’s field notes indicated the following comments:

“Unfortunately, students could not describe many easy words and had to

say “pass”. Another point to note is that usually only one student was active

while making the descriptions. There were funny anecdotes as a result of the

efforts to make the other group say the word in a limited time.”

The participants’ descriptions became more and more organized as a result of

the strategies-based instruction. The activity turned into a real game in which students

were in a competitive mood to explain more words. Thus, the participants indicated that

the strategy was very helpful. Their performance doubled in the increase of the number

of words described. Researcher’s field notes regarding this activity were as follows:

“All the students agreed with the idea that the strategy they learned made

their job easier. They stated that describing became both easy and fun.

Their sentences after training included fewer errors. It was clearly

observed that students could explain more words in a more organized way

and faster. More importantly, students who remained silent before,

actively participated this time, and this made them feel more self-

confident”.

The strategy that aimed to help learners describe pictures in a more organized

way was shown to be effective in the post-test. Although the participants needed to use

structures with which they were already familiar (e.g. have-has got, there is- there are,

and present continuous tense), almost all of the students had difficulty in making up

sentences and speaking fluently. In the group discussion carried out after training, the

students (Gamze, Dila) stated, “If you had told us that you would teach us about the

structures helping us to talk about pictures, we would certainly think that we already

knew it. In the activity we saw that we did not”. Many students reported to have much

difficulty in organizing their thoughts and even recalling very easy words such as

picture, woman, walk, and child. In a similar line of thought, Dila said, “Teacher, I was

150

too bad. I said – a chair, a not chair!” All of the students pointed out that they learned

how to make up sentences. Ercan said that especially the second picture was too

difficult for him to utter anything, but he realized that it was not that difficult when he

used the strategy they were instructed.

4.5.5. Further Evidence Displaying the Participants’ Perceptions (Interview Data)

Beside group discussions and written accounts, the participants’ perceptions

during the interviews aiming at exploring the participants’ views on strategies-based

instruction included the following questions:

- How would you describe language learning strategies?

- How do you think that strategies-based instruction contributes to your language

learning?

-What are the advantages and disadvantages of strategies-based instruction?

-How can you use strategies in your daily life?

First of all, all of the participants stated that they had never been taught language

learning strategies before they were instructed at BILSEM. They further explained that

even if they had discovered or indirectly were instructed some of the strategies they

learnt, they did not know that they were strategies used for language learning.

Next, the participants were asked whether they would be willing to learn more

learning strategies in English and in other lessons. All of them agreed with this idea and

stated that learning practical ways of improving their knowledge is an invaluable

opportunity.

Then, they were asked to define the language learning strategies they were

instructed. Their answers included the following:

“Strategies are ways that make English learning easier”.

Beril

“Strategies are techniques that help us learn and store things in English. For

example phrases and sentences”.

Oğuz

151

“Language learning strategies are activities that make learning English easier”.

Bartu

“Strategies are ways that make learning and remembering things in English

easier”.

Nilgün

“Enjoyable ways that help us learn English more easily”.

Sait

“Ways making English learning easier”.

Bertan

“Little activities that make learning English easier”.

Ayhan

“Strategies are various techniques that aim to make learning easier and more

enjoyable”.

Ercan

“Ways that make learning English both easy and enjoyable”.

Dila

“Strategies are tips that make learning English easier”.

Gamze

As the above mentioned definitions suggest, the participants appear to have a

clear perception of what language learning strategies are. Moreover, their perceptions

seem to correlate with the definition proposed by Oxford (1990; p.1): “Language

learning strategies are behaviors, techniques, steps, or actions. Essentially they are those

things learners do to aid their understanding of the target language”. Definitions given

by the participants suggest that the language learning strategies they were taught are

perceived as practical ways helping them to learn easily and in a more enjoyable way.

Another question aimed at identifying the participants’ ideas about the

effectiveness of such instruction in terms of its contribution to their English success. All

the participants agreed that the things being carried out in the activities were much

different from the ones done in their own school. According to them, they should be

exposed to more skills and aspects of the language usually neglected at school. In this

regard, they reported to have found listening and speaking activities and the strategies

instructed in these activities very helpful. Dila, Bertan and Nilgün highlighted that they

152

save time when they use the strategies. Nilgün stated that she does not panic when she

utilizes the organizational planning strategy. Bertan thinks that his speech became more

fluent as a result of the strategies-based instruction while Gizem complained that they

have to memorize at school, and she believes that the activities carried out at BILSEM

made them feel that they learn in real sense. She said, “Things we did were beyond

learning vocabulary and grammar. I realized that English is something beyond SBS

exam”. Ercan and Ayhan focused on the role of the training in helping them make

sentences. They stated that they did not know how to start telling something in speaking

activities. They also mentioned that the strategies helped them discover the real use of

the grammatical structures they learned when they first started learning English.

The students were also asked which strategies were most helpful for their

learning, not only at school but also at BILSEM. Responses to this question revealed

that the most favored strategies were Note-taking (three pupils) and Finding Rhymes

(three pupils). Those who found the note-taking strategy helpful expressed that they

used it not only in English lessons but also in many activities at school. Oğuz and Beril

stated that note-taking enhanced thinking in a more organized way, which made

learning easier and more enjoyable. Some students stated that they visualized the tables

used in the activity and that made their speech more fluent. Other strategies which were

also found helpful were Prediction, Substitution, Talking about Pictures, and

Organizational planning. However, students also reported that they generally found all

the strategies instructed very effective.

The participants were asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of

the strategies-based instruction. All but three students reported that the training had no

disadvantages. Comments by those three students regarding the disadvantages of such

instruction were as follows: “The names of the strategies are too long to keep in mind”

(Nilgün), “We do not have a parallel instruction at school, I wish we did” (Ercan), and

“Only voice recordings which made me feel very excited” (Dila).

As for the advantages of strategies-based instruction, the participants’ comments

focused on “speaking more fluently”, “communicating more easily”, “awareness of

learning and the natural process of making mistakes in learning”, “storing more words

and recalling them more easily”, “being able to substitute”, “saving time”,

“understanding rather than just memorizing”, “becoming more self-confident and thus

153

raising marks at school”, “learning how to make meaningful sentences”, and “learning

how to start telling something”.

The last question in the interview was related to whether the strategies they

learned helped them in their daily life. Many of the participants stated that they

transferred their knowledge of the strategies into other lessons and activities at school.

Besides, things they learned helped them succeed in any speaking activities. Some of

them mentioned the importance of the substitution strategy in enhancing performance in

many of the activities carried out. Both in pilot study and the main study, the students

reported to have gained from the strategies-based instruction. Data collected from think-

aloud protocols and group discussions correlate with the participants’ views in the

interview.

Having identified the positive influence of the strategies-based language

instruction on the participants’ initial language learning strategies and proficiency level,

the last research question aimed at discovering their perceptions regarding the

effectiveness of such instruction. The data were elicited through interviews, group

discussions, and written accounts as well as supported by the researcher’s field notes.

All of the participants reported to have found strategies-based language instruction very

helpful, easier, enjoyable, and effective. Besides, they think that such instruction has

positive effects on their language learning process and believe that the increase in their

English marks at school were resulted from the strategies they were instructed at

BILSEM.

4.6. Conclusion

This chapter has presented the findings obtained from questionnaires,

proficiency tests, interviews, group discussions, written accounts, and the researcher’s

field notes. All of the data obtained from different data collection tools appear to have

consistency and to reveal positive effects of the strategies-based instruction on the

participants’ language learning process.

Chapter 5 is devoted to the conclusion derived from the data findings.

154

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

5.0. Introduction

This study, aiming to identify the role of strategies-based language instruction in

teaching English to young gifted students, stemmed from the need to understand how

those who were identified as gifted view learning English and to gain from the

educational opportunities they are provided with. Findings obtained from various data

collection tools were presented in Chapter 4. This chapter serves to evaluate the

research questions that guided the study with a view to identifying the role of strategies-

based instruction. The chapter also discusses the implications and recommendations for

further study.

5.1. Evaluation of the Research Questions

This study aims to identify the current language learning strategies of gifted

learners and extend their repertoire of learning strategies through a strategies-based

English instruction program with a view to making them more effective language

learners. In line with this purpose, the study was conducted with the consideration of

the following research questions:









The first research question serves the purpose of discovering gifted learners’

perceptions of learning English. Results indicated that gifted students participating in

this study have positive attitudes towards learning English in general. Moreover, they

are aware of the importance of learning a foreign language. Statements such as

155

“Whether I like it or not, learning a foreign language is necessary” and their short-term

and long-term goals regarding being able to speak a foreign language clearly

demonstrate the importance that they attach to learning English. According to the results

obtained from the attitudes questionnaire, the participants seem to have developed

positive attitudes towards learning English in general. This finding is supported by the

data obtained from BALLI, the results of which indicate the participants’ awareness of

the importance of speaking a foreign language in finding better jobs.

Data obtained from BALLI developed by Horwitz (1988) provided insights

pertaining to the participants’ thinking, beliefs, and actions in language learning. It was

found that they regard learning a foreign language as something that can be

accomplished by anyone, and a great majority does not think that they have special

ability to learn languages. As detected in the attitudes questionnaire, participants of this

study believe that learning a foreign language at early ages is easier and will be helpful

to them later. They value the opportunities they are provided regarding learning a

foreign language; however, they do not find Turkey successful in teaching languages.

They also do not think that people in Turkey are good language learners. A final note

pertaining to the data gathered from BALLI questionnaire is the indication of gifted

learners’ perfectionist characteristic. Almost all of the participants believe that it is

important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation. Besides, a great majority of

them think that if beginning students are allowed to make mistakes in English, it will be

difficult for them to speak correctly later on.

English Background Questionnaire is another data collection tool that

contributed to the understanding of the participants’ circumstances while learning

English. Results obtained from this questionnaire show that the participants’ exposure

to English is limited to the learning environments they are in. Although a few of them

stated that they watch English TV programs, the rest do not hear or use English in their

daily lives. It was also detected that many of the participants have no one to ask about

the things they do not understand in English.

Gifted learners are usually high-achievers, most probably the best students not

only in the class but also in their school. Hence, they are usually regarded as “very

good” learners. However, their perceived language level reflects the participants’

156

perfectionist characteristic which results from giftedness. They are aware that they are

academically better than many students; but the great majority perceives their language

level as “good” rather than “very good”. The participants have also indicated their wish

to reach the highest level possible in their language learning process.

Given the results obtained from the Attitudes Questionnaire, BALLI, and the

English Background Questionnaire, it can be assumed that teaching young gifted

learners means knowingly working with enthusiastic learners who are aware of the

importance of learning a foreign language and setting high standards for self and

expecting to gain much from the language program they are attending.

Any language learning program based on strategies-based instruction requires

the identification of the language learning strategies already utilized by the learners.

Therefore, the participants’ strategy use was investigated using SILL, developed by

Oxford (1990), to form a base for the instruction. Gifted learners spontaneously employ

more elaborate and effective learning strategies than do their peers (Scruggs et al.,

1985). Therefore, results obtained from the SILL reveal that many students seem to try

to utilize many of strategies from time to time. Nevertheless, this does not mean that

gifted learners are already aware of the language learning strategies that would make

their learning easier and more effective. Data obtained from written accounts and

interviews demonstrate that the participants did not know that things they were doing

were language learning strategies at the beginning of the study. This finding clearly

demonstrates the need for helping gifted learners gain from strategies-based language

instruction. Studies (e.g. Scruggs et al., 1985) show that gifted learners benefit from

strategies-based instruction better than average learners since they can transfer their

knowledge of strategies to other learning contexts. Moreover, studies (e.g Chan, 2001)

conducted to discover the differences between the gifted and nongifted students show

that gifted students indicated greater preferences for learning styles related to

interpersonal verbal exchanges and autonomous learning. Instruction of learning

strategies can offer such learning opportunities to young gifted children.

The third research question aimed at exploring the effect of strategy instruction

on the frequency of use of the language learning strategies. As put forward by several

authorities investigating strategies-based language instruction (e.g. Oxford,1990;

157

Cohen, 1998; O’Malley, Chamot, 1990), it is not easy to detect strategy use in learners.

This study made use of various data collection tools to find answers to this question.

Firstly, the SILL (Oxford, 1990), administered as a pre-test before the strategies-based

instruction began, was given as a post-test once the strategy training was over.

However, not all the items in the questionnaire matched with the strategies instructed in

the training and some of the strategies taught were not in the SILL. Nevertheless, this

study utilized SILL because it is considered to be the most comprehensive inventory in

identifying strategy use to date.

Data obtained from the inventory indicated that the participants demonstrated a

remarkable increase in the frequency of use of the strategies instructed. The participants

reported to use language learning strategies such as finding rhymes, taking notes,

substitution, thinking of the relationship between what they learn and what they already

know more frequently than before. However, some strategy groups did not reveal any

increase (e.g. social and affective strategies). Therefore, investigating the participants’

use of strategies only through SILL did not seem to be satisfactory. To obtain more in-

depth data regarding the use of strategies and the role of strategies-based instruction in

this, more data collection tools were utilized.

Think-aloud protocols provided invaluable data pertaining to the way gifted

learners handle language tasks and the reasons why they avoid doing some parts of

activities. Think-aloud protocols made it clear that gifted learners try to use the exact

translation of more complicated expressions they want to use, which makes them fail in

activities that are supposed to be quite easy for them. Instead of trying to find the exact

translation of a word that they would like to use, they begin to substitute them with

easier ones after the strategies-based instruction. As a result, they became more

successful in the activities during which they remained silent before their exposure to

strategies-based instruction.

Another example regarding their use of the language learning strategies is

related to the grouping strategy. It was not possible to detect the frequency of this

strategy in SILL. However, the think-aloud protocols clearly showed that those who

were instructed the grouping strategy utilized it in similar activities while those who

were not instructed (control group in the pilot study) and those who were absent when

158

the strategy was taught failed to discover the grouping strategy by themselves.

Unfortunately, before the strategy instruction, the only way for many students

participating in the study to learn vocabulary was to write the words several times. As

indicated by Ercan, not because they liked this way or found it useful, but because “it is

the only way of vocabulary learning” they had known so far.

Final interviews demonstrated that the participants benefited from the strategies-

based instruction in that they began to make use of such strategies as taking notes and

organizational planning and transfer them into many activities not only at BILSEM but

also at school. Nilgün pointed out that she began to use the note-taking strategy in a

more effective way in her native language after she was instructed that strategy in the

training process. During the interviews all the participants agreed with the idea that the

strategies they were taught helped them in their learning and they made use of them in

other learning contexts. This finding was supported with the data gathered from written

accounts in which the participants declared that they found the strategies very helpful

and would like to learn more strategies, especially the ones focusing on speaking.

Therefore, although the frequency of use of the language learning strategies was

not clearly identified through SILL, data collected from think-aloud protocols, written

accounts and final interviews showed that the participants became more aware of the

strategies that would help them learn easily and effectively. Hence, strategies-based

language instruction was found to produce positive changes in gifted learners’ initial

strategy use.

Having identified that the participants have become aware of the language

learning strategies and begun to utilize them, the study seek to find answers to the

question of whether such training contributed to the participants’ success in English. To

do this, the participants’ language proficiency was evaluated through the Cambridge

Young Learners Proficiency Exam, which was used as a pre-test and post-test. Pre-test

scores showed that all the students got higher marks in the reading exams. This result is

parallel with their beliefs as most of the pupils participating in the study think that they

are much better at reading than the other skills. They scored lower in the listening test

than they did in the other skills. It was observed during the administration of the test

that many students got frustrated when they were required to answer questions while

159

listening to a text or a conversation. This may result from the fact that developing

listening strategies is usually neglected in schools.

In the speaking part of the proficiency test, the students were involved in a

conversation through pictures. In the pre-test, most of the students seemed to be nervous

and could not fully understand the tasks most probably because of having their voice

recorded for the first time. On the other hand, most students felt more relaxed and self-

confident during the post-test recording. They knew what they were supposed to do;

thus, they could focus on the questions instead of trying to understand even the smallest

details in the pictures. As a result, speaking performance of the participants displayed a

significant increase. Their ability to comprehend very well but having difficulty in

responding indicates that gifted learners need to be instructed speaking strategies which

can facilitate their communication. This is also supported by the participants’ desire to

be instructed more speaking strategies during the study.

It is important to note that the most remarkable increase in the participants’

performance was detected in the speaking part. The speaking part of the proficiency test

was administered by the researcher, but it was evaluated by two different researchers,

one of whom had no experience in teaching English to gifted students. Both researchers

highlighted the increase in the participants’ performance and fluency in their speech in

the post-test. The participants’ improvement in speaking is worth noting in that their

utterances demonstrated improvement both in quality and in quantity (see Section 4.4 in

Chapter 4).

However, the proficiency test was not the only data collection tool aiming to

identify the increase in the participants’ proficiency level. Various activities carried out

and tape recorded before and after strategy instruction helped to give insights into the

change in the participants’ proficiency level. In this regard, the students participating in

the study were found to increase their language level as detected in the activities such as

describing things, substitution, organizational planning, and talking about pictures (see

section 4.4.3 in Chapter 4). Think-aloud protocols revealed progress in both the strategy

use and speaking performance of the participants. Hence, strategies-based instruction

was found to produce positive changes in the English language proficiency of the gifted

learners.

160

The final research question that was under consideration in the study

investigated gifted learners’ perceptions pertaining to strategies-based language

instruction. Written accounts, group discussions and final interviews aimed to find

answers to this question. All the data collection tools serving to detect how the

participants viewed this training process revealed that the students participating in the

study stated to have found such training very useful and effective. Moreover, they

reported that they had enjoyed participating in the activities and more importantly that

they could transfer the strategies that they learnt to the other learning contexts in the

mainstream program at their schools and/or in their daily lives.

In conclusion, gifted learners have the capacity for depth and complexity,

knowledge transfer, quick processing, and inductive learning (Siegle, 2005). All the

data collection tools used in this study to identify the pupils’ perception of the

effectiveness of the strategy training provided evidence that gifted learners look for

ways to make their learning quicker, easier, more effective and more enjoyable and that

strategy training provides a great opportunity to create such a learning atmosphere.

There is also further evidence showing that such training helps those learners use their

potential to transfer their knowledge of strategies to a variety of other learning

environments.

The strategies-based language instruction which was utilized in this study with

the purpose of improving the language proficiency of the gifted students who are

enrolled in Adana Science and Arts Center has proven to be effective in producing

positive changes in the learners’ initial language proficiency and in the language

learning strategies utilized by them. In addition, such training was conceived to be very

helpful, effective, and enjoyable by the learners.

5.2. Implications and Recommendations for Further Study

Most gifted children around the world are vulnerable to not having educational

opportunities and programs that match their abilities, resulting in suffering from

boredom in regular classroom, losing interest in learning, underachieving, and even

becoming apathetic about school (Goodlad, 1984).With the establishment of Science

and Arts Centers (BILSEM) in Turkey, gifted learners seem to be given the opportunity

to learn with pupils at their pace. However, these centers have no established

161

curriculum, and English classes are no different. Teachers who work in these centers are

usually left alone to grope about identifying the characteristics of gifted learners in

order to choose language learning tasks accordingly. Therefore, the results acquired in

the present study can guide the development of an English language curriculum to be

used in these centers and hence provide invaluable insights concerning the efforts to

improve the language training undertaken at this level of education.

One may ask the question whether strategies-based instruction would produce

the same or similar results if the study had been conducted with nongifted students.

Although the answer to such a question is out of the scope of this study, we admit that

the participants’ present status of being gifted facilitated the strategies-based instruction

conducted in this study. However, this is a pioneering study in Turkey which has clearly

indicated that strategies-based language instruction has the potential to function as a

catalyst to enhance the gifted learners’ already established language learning strategies

to make them more effective learners of English. By providing both the general

framework and flexible and transferrable activities, language learning strategies can be a

very helpful teaching tool for teachers working in institutions special to the gifted. Such

instruction has the potential to help teachers to know their students better in terms of

language learning and to improve their students’ repertoire of language learning

strategies. A strategies-based training with more variety of strategies to be instructed

and including more gifted learners would probably provide more insights regarding the

way gifted students learn languages.

Although the development of an English curriculum specially designed for

gifted students is out of the scope of this study, the experience gained from the

strategies-based language instruction that guided the present study is believed to have

shed light to the issue of teaching English to young gifted students at BILSEM.

Limiting gifted students who love learning and exploring everything with

curriculum does not seem to be a plausible idea. However, teachers who work in centers

where gifted students attend do need to be guided by a general framework in which to

base activities they carry out, ideally parallel to the characteristics of these special

children. Therefore, it might be helpful to mention the outcomes of strategies-based

instruction in line with the implications it has on gifted education.

162

Firstly, a strategies-based instruction process helps teachers to know their

students better. Because of the fact that the use of language learning strategies are

affected by many personal features, such as age, gender, grade level, learning

preferences, and attitudes, the first phase of language learning strategies instruction

means knowing learners better through various data collection tools such as

questionnaires, inventories, interviews or think-aloud protocols. This way of gathering

more in-depth data regarding the students gives teachers the opportunity to know their

students better in terms of their beliefs and attitudes towards learning English, how

much they are exposed to English in everyday life, their motivation to learn English as

well as their long term and short term goals, and specific skills they would like to focus

on. This kind of a need analysis to be conducted at the beginning of a strategies-based

instruction can help teachers get to know their students better and to choose the

strategies to be instructed.

Secondly, strategies-based instruction is a conscious process in which learners

become aware of their own learning processes. An identification of the already utilized

language learning strategies indicates the way learners handle the hard process of

learning a foreign language. This can help teachers explore whether their students are

aware of or are making use of the language learning strategies that would enhance their

learning. The conscious process of thinking and learning in a strategic way may begin

with the questions asked pertaining to the language learning strategies. Teachers may

start with the instruction of some already utilized strategies to show their role in making

foreign language learning easier and more organized, and later focus on the least

utilized strategies for raising awareness. An inventory that identifies language learning

strategies utilized by students serves the purpose of knowing students better in terms of

the role of these strategies in their lives and the planning strategies to be instructed

accordingly.

Thirdly, strategies-based instruction reveals some unexplored parts of learning

and learners which affects teaching in a positive way. Specific to this context, think-

aloud protocols provided an invaluable opportunity to learn the way gifted minds work

while working on tasks. This way of individualized attention to the students helps

teachers to pinpoint the difficulties experienced. To give more specific examples from

this study, think-aloud protocols revealed that when the gifted children fail to carry out

163

a simple activity, it may be caused from their general characteristic of making an

activity more complicated than it actually is, or trying to express things using advanced

vocabulary. Once this problem is identified, it can be solved using the language

learning strategies that are related to handling this issue. In this context, the students

were taught the substitution strategy and were found to make use of it in the activities.

Next, since the strategies are problem-oriented and flexible, they can help

teachers and learners focus on the problematic points in their learning. Moreover,

strategies-based instruction gives an opportunity to focus on the four skills. Learners

need to practice in all skills, but the learners of this context need more practice in skills

usually neglected in the mainstream program at school; namely, listening and speaking.

Finally, language learning strategies enhance strategic thinking and enable

learners to transfer the skills learned into other learning contexts. For instance, the

prediction strategy was originally instructed in a listening activity, but it was actively

used for reading, speaking and writing activities. In a similar way, the participants of

this study made use of organizational planning, substitution and note-taking strategies

in all skills and various activities (e.g. World Culture international Party, Describing

Things, Introducing Yourself, Talking about Pictures).

Hence, a general framework pertaining to strategies-based language instruction

to be used with gifted learners could be as follows:

Preparation

- Getting to know students better (Identifying their English background and

knowledge of language learning strategies)

- Identifying learners’ needs in foreign language learning

- Awareness raising discussions regarding the use of language learning

strategies and their roles in enhancing learning.

Presentation

- Exposing learners to a strategies-based language instruction parallel to their

needs, explicitly instructing the way the strategies are used, providing them

with visual reminders of strategies.

164

Practice

- Carrying out activities using the strategies instructed and helping students to

make their learning easier and more effective.

Evaluation

- Evaluating the role of strategies-based instruction in making learning more

effective.

Expansion

- Transferring the language learning strategies instructed into other learning

contents.

5.3. Limitations

This study aims to identify the role of strategies-based instruction in the English

proficiency of gifted learners. The main study which was conducted with ten students

was piloted with 34 students. However, generalizing the results to the whole population

of gifted learners is beyond the scope of this study.

In addition, this study includes young gifted learners enrolled in the English

program in Adana Science and Arts Center (BILSEM). Although the collected data

were supported by various data collection tools, the participants were limited to the

students in Adana. Therefore, a wider research with more participants would shed more

light to the issue of teaching English to young gifted learners in Turkey. Besides,

studies that compare gifted and nongifted learners in terms the language learning

processes they are engaged in and language learning strategies they utilize would to a

large extent contribute to the understanding of the gifted.

165

REFERENCES

A report for the Council of Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) (2006).

Gifted and talented children in (and out) of the classroom.

Atalay, N. K. (2000). Üstün yetenekli olan ve olmayan ergenlerin algıladıkları anne

baba tutumları ile uyum düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi.

Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Ataman, A. (2003). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş. (Ed.). Ankara:

Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayınıcılık,

Barkan, J. H. & Bernal, E. M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English

proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (3), 144-147.

Binet, A., (1905). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of

Subnormals. Retrieved 29 Nov, 2010 from

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Binet/binet1.htm

Bremmer, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency:

Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 55, 4: 490-515

Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they

for the gifted?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(3), 105–110.

Budak, İ. (2007). Matematikte üstün yetenekli öğrencileri belirlemede bir model.

Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Karadeniz Teknik üniversitesi, Trabzon.

Burak, M. M. (1995), Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin benlik kavramlarına yönelik bir

araştırma. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi,

Ankara.

Butterfield, E.C., & Feretti, R.P. (1987). Toward a theoretical integration of cognitive

hypotheses about intellectual differences among children. In J. G.

Borkowski & J.D. Day (Eds), Cognition in special children:

Comparative approaches to retardation, learning disabilities, and

giftedness. (pp. 195-233). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Chamot, A. & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). CALLA Handbook: Implementing the cognitive

academic language learning approach. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Binet/binet1.htm

166

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary P.B., and Robbins, J. (1999). The learning

strategies handbook. white plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Chan, D.W. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong

Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45 (1), 35-44

Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted. New York: Merrill.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using language. Longman.

Cohen, R. & Swerdlik, M. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: an

introduction to test and measurements (6th ed.), New York: NY:

McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (1991). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived:

How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: The

Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

Education and Talent Development.

Coleman, M. (1994). Using cooperative learning with gifted students. Gifted child

Today, 17 (6), 36-38.

Coleman , M. R. & Gallagher, J.J. (1995). The successful blending of gifted education

with middle schools and cooperative learning: two studies. Journal fort

the Education of the Gifted, 18, 362-384.

Collins, N. D. & Aiex, N.K. (1995). Gifted Readers and Reading Instruction. ERIC

Digest. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and

Communication. ED 379 637

Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward

Arnold.

Cürebal, F. (2004). Farklı sınıf seviyelerindeki ve cinsiyetteki üstün yetenekli

öğrencilerin fen ve öğrenme ortamına karşı tutumlarının incelenmesi.

Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi,

Ankara.

Dansereau, D F. (1985). Learning Strategy Research. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman and

R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. (9-39). Hillsdale: N J

Erlbaum, (1).

167

Davidson, J. E. (1986). The role of insight in giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E.

Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. (201-222). Cambridge: UK:

Cambridge University Press

Delcourt, M.A.B, Cornell, D.G, Goldberg, M.D. (2007). Cognitive and affective

learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51 (4), 359-381.

Dick, B. (2002 ).Action research: action and research. A paper prepared for the

seminar "Doing good action research" held at Southern Cross University,

Monday February 18, 2002. Retrieved on August 10, 2010 from

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html#a_aar_whatis

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge

University Press

Dunn,R., Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E, (1993). The learning styles of gifted adolescents in

the United States. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds).

Teaching and counseling gifted and talented adolescents: An

international learning style perspective, 119-136, Westport, CT: Praeger.

Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and

psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern

Language Journal, 73 (1), 1-13.

Elliot, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change, Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Enç, M. (2005). Üstün Beyin Gücü. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.

Gagnè, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early

entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26 (3), 128–139.

Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on

the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111.

Gagné, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of human abilities, gifts and talents.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 109-136.

Gagnè, F. (1999). Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Journal for the Education

of the Gifted, 22, 191–234.

Gagné, R. J. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development.

In K. A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, & A. Harry Passow (Eds.), International

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html#a_aar_whatis

168

handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. (pp. 67-

79, New York, NY: Pergamon.

Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental

theory. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted

education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallagher, J.J. (2008). Psychology, psychologists, and gifted students. In S.I. Pfeiffer

(Ed), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory,

research, and best practices. (pp. 1-11). New York: Springer Science &

Business Media, LLC

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gorrfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education.

In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (3rd

ed., 24-40). Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Green, J. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency,

and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.

Gregory, A. (1996). Primary Foreign Language Teaching-Influences, Attitudes, and

Effects. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, School of Education, University of

Leeds.

Grenfell, M. & Harris. V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: in theory

and practice. London: Routledge.

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-383.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Griggs, S.,& Dunn, R. (1984). Selected case studies of the learning style preferences of

gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 28, 115-119.

Gross, M. U. M. & van Vliet, H. E. (2005). Radical acceleration and early entry to

college: A review of the research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (2),154–

171.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Heller,, K.A. & Schofield, N.J. (2008). Identification and nurturing the gifted from an

international perspective. In S.I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness

169

in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (93-

114). New York: Springer.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning foreign

language students, Modern Language Journal, 72 (3), 283 294.

Hurd, S., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). (2008). Language learning strategies in independent

settings. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters

Huss, J. (2006, Fall). Gifted education and cooperative learning: A miss or a match?.

Gifted Child Today, 29 (4), 19-23.

Jausovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent,

creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An

EEG study. Intelligence, 28, 213-237

Johnsen, S. K. (Ed.). (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX:

Prufrock Press

Karpat, K. (1973). Social change and politics in Turkey. Leiden: Brill ENDERUN

Kaufman, S.B. & Sternberg, R.J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.),

Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory,

research, and best practices. New York, NY: Plenum.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research reader. (3rd ed.). Victoria:

Deakin University Press.

Kline, B. E. & Short, E. B. (1991a). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent

boys. Roeper Review, 13, 184-188.

Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991b). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent

females. Roeper Review, 13, 118-121.

Koshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice. A step-by-step

guide, (2nd ed.), London: Sage.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and

contemporary perspective: Research-based decision making series.

Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,

University of Connecticut.

Lan, R.L. 2005. Language learning strategies profiles of EFL elementary school

students in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Maryland.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: staking out the

territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (2), 315-350.

170

Lawday, C. & MacAndrew, R. (2004). Aladdin. New York: Oxford University Press.

Levent, F. (2011). Üstün yetenekli çocukların hakları: Üstün yetenekli olmak. İstanbul,

Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları.

LLAS (2011). Action Research Projects. Retvieved 15th March, 2011 from

http://www.llas.ac.uk/projects/project_item.aspx?resourceid=2837

Lovecky, D.V. (2003). Learning about Gifted Children. Seng: Supporting Emotional

Needs of the Gifted, 17(2).

Marland, S.P., (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Volume 1: Report to the

Congress of the United States by the Commissioner of Education.

Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms.

London: Continuum

McDonough, S. (2005) Training language learning expertise. In K. Johnson (ed.),

Expertise in second language learning and teaching, 150–164,

Basingstoke:Palgrave.

McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research. London: Kogan Page.

Moon J (2000). Children learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann

National Commission of Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. London:

Prentice Hall.

Nyikos M. & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning

strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and

social psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 77 (1), 11-22

O’Boyle, M.W. & Gill, H.S (1998). On the relevance of research findings in cognitive

neuroscience to educational practice. Educational Psychology review, 10,

397-409

O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

http://www.llas.ac.uk/projects/project_item.aspx?resourceid=2837

171

Oxford, R.L., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning

strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning. System, 23 (2), 153-175.

Parenti, M. (1998). America besieged. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Park, G.P. (1997). Language Learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean

University. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (2), 211-221.

Phillips, V. (1990). English as a second language learner strategies of adult Asian

students Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San

Francisco, CA.

Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education, (2nd

ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Politzer, R & McGroarty, M (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviours and

their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence,

TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123

Pyryt, M. C., Sandalsi L. H. &Begoray, J. (1998). Learning style spreferences of gifted,

average-ability, and special neeeds students. A multivariate perspective.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13, 71-76

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model

for creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson J. (Ed.)

Conceptions of giftedness, (53-92), New York: Cambridge University

Press

Rigney, J.W. (1978). Learning strategies: a theoretical perspective. In: H. F. O’Neil (Jr)

(Ed), Learning strategies. (pp.165-205). New York: Academic Press.

Robinson, N. M. (2008). The value of traditional assessments as approaches to

identifying academically gifted students. In J. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.),

Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students. (157-174).

Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Robinson, A. E. & Clinkenbeard, P.R. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from

the past presage modern scholarship. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of

giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best

practices. New York: Springer.

172

Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent

research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 10, 17-39.

Rogers, K. B., & Span, P. (1993). Ability grouping with gifted and talented students:

Research and guidelines. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow

(Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness

and talent, 585–592, New York: Pergamon.

Rubin, J (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us, TESOL Quarterly, 9,

41-51.

Rubin, J. (1990). How learner strategies can inform language teaching. In V. Bickley,

(Ed.) Language use, language teaching and the curriculum. Hong Kong :

Institute of Language in Education.

Schmeck, Ronald, R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York:

Plenum Press

Scruggs, Thomas E., Mastropieri, M. A., Monson, J. & Jorgenson, C. (1985).

Maximizing what gifted students can learn: Recent findings of learning

strategy research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29 (4), 181-185.

Seagoe, M. (1974). Some learning characteristics of gifted children. In R. Martinson.

(Ed.). The identification of the gifted and talented, Ventura, CA: Office

of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.

Seliger, H (1984). Processing universals in second language acquisition. In F. Eckman,

L. Bell, & D. Nelson (Eds.). Universals of Second Language Acquisition.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House. (36-47).

Shore, B. M., Koller, M. & Dover, A. (1994). More from water jars: A reanalysis of

problem-solving performance among gifted and nongifted children.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 38. 179-183.

Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how

gifted children think. In R.C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds), Talents

unfolding: cognition and development, (167-187), Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development.

London: Guilford.

Stern, H H (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. (edited posthumously by

Patrick Allen & Birgit Harley). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

173

Sternberg, R. & Wagner, R. (1982). A revolutionary look at intelligence. Gifted

Children Newsletter, 3, 11.

Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Implications of the restricted range of family environments for

estimates of heritability and nonshared environment in behavior-genetic

adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 392–409.

Strategy (n.d.). In dictionary.com. Retrieved 4th January, 2011 from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

Swiatek, M.A. (1995). An Emprical Investigation of the social coping strategies used by

gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 154-160

Szabos, J. (1989). Bright child gifted learner. Challenge, issue 34.

Şahin, A. (1995). Üstün yetenekli ve üstün yetenekli olmayan çocukların aile sistemi

algıları ve öz kavramları : karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma. Yayınlanmamış

yüksek lisans tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul

Szabos, J. “The Gifted and Talented Child.” Maryland Council for Gifted & Talented

Children, Inc. [online]. Available from:

http://www.tagfam.org/whoisgifted.html. [Accessed: 12 May 2010]

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational

perspectives. New York: Macmillan

Tarhan, H. (2005). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerde fizik eğitimi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek

lisans tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

The History of Gifted and Talented Education. National Association of Gifted Children

(NAGC). Avaliable at: http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=607.

Accessed May 14, 2011

Thurstone, L. (1938). Primary mutual abilities. In S.I. Pfeiffer (Ed), Handbook of

giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best

practices, (1-11), New York: Springer Science & Business Media, LLC

Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003).

Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children.

Psychological Science, 14, 623-628.

Uzun, A. (2006). Üstün veya Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin sosyal bilgiler dersine ilişkin

tutumları ile akademik başarı arasındaki ilişki. Yayınlanmamış yüksek

lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

http://www.tagfam.org/whoisgifted.html

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=607

174

Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (1987). (Eds.). Learner strategies in language learning.

Cambridge: Prentice-Hall.

Wenden, A. (1989). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (3rd ed., 315-329),

New York: Macmillan.

Weinstein, C.E. & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C.

Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (315-327), London:

Macmillan.

Wesche, M (1977). Learning behaviours of successful adult students on intensive

language training. In C. Henning (Ed), Proceedings of the los angeles

second language research forum, (pp. 355-370). English Department,

University of California at Los Angeles.

Winner, E. (1998). Uncommon talents: gifted children, prodigies and savants. Scientific

American, Inc.

Yeşilova, H. (1997). Üstün yetenekliler ve türkiye’de üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimi.

Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: examples and

reflections. London: Kogan

175

APPENDICES Appendix 1. Attitudes Questionnaire

1. I do not like English. …………..

2. English may be useful to me later. …………..

3. I like English. …………..

4. English is a waste of time …………..

5. English lessons are fun…………..

6. English is hard…………..

7. I would like to go to England or America …………….

8. I am no good at English ……………

9. I would like to find more about English ……………….

10. I would like to learn other languages ……………….

11. I think my parents are pleased that I am learning English ……………

12. I think everyone should learn English at Primary School ……………

13. My friends think that learning English is good ……………

14. I do not like the way we learn English …………….

15. I think that doing English now will help me in Secondary School …….

16. I would like to meet some English/American children my age …………..

17. I do not like the English teacher ………..

18. English is usually boring …………..

19. I am glad that I am learning English …………..

If you want to explain anything else, please write here:

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

176

Appendix 2. Background Questionnaire

1. Adınız ve devam ettiğiniz program:

……………………………………………………………………………………

2. Okul ve Sınıfınız:

…………………………………………………………………………………….

3. Okulda haftada kaç saat İngilizce dersi görüyorsunuz?

…………………………………………………………………………………….

4. Normal hayatınızda İngilizce konuştuğunuz kişiler var mı, lütfen belirtiniz

…………………………………………………………………………………….

5. Televizyonda İngilizce programlar izliyor musunuz? Evetse haftada ortalama

kaç saat?

……………………………………………………………………………………..

6. Günlük hayatınızda İngilizceyi okul ve BILSEM dışında hangi ortamlarda

duyuyorsunuz?

……………………………………………………………………………………..

7. İngilizce ile ilgili bilmediğiniz bir şey olduğunda öğrenmek için ne

yapıyorsunuz?

……………………………………………………………………………………

8. İngilizce bilgi seviyenizi nasıl tanımlıyorsunuz?

a) çok kötü b) kötü c) orta d) iyi e) çok iyi

9. Aşağıdaki dil öğrenme becerilerinden hangisinde en başarılı olduğunuzu

düşünüyorsunuz?

a) İngilizce dinlediğini anlama b) İngilizce okuduğunu anlama c) İngilizce

yazma d) İngilizce konuşma

10. Aşağıdaki dil öğrenme becerilerinden hangisinde en AZ başarılı olduğunuzu

düşünüyorsunuz?

a) İngilizce dinlediğini anlama b) İngilizce okuduğunu anlama c) İngilizce

yazma d) İngilizce konuşma

177

11. Dil öğrenme becerilerini öğrenme isteğinize göre sıraya diziniz:

1……………..…. 2……………..…. 3 ……………..…. 4……………..….

12. Sizce SBS sınavı İngilizce öğrenmenize nasıl katkı sağlıyor?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

13. Sizce etkili bir İngilizce öğretiminde mutlaka olması gereken şeyler nelerdir?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

14. BILSEM’de İngilizce BYFP programından beklentilerinizi yazınız:

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

15. İngilizce ile ilgili en çok öğrenmek/geliştirmek istediğiniz şey nedir?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

18. İngilizceyi nasıl öğrenmek istersiniz? Size uyan seçeneğin yanına “Evet”

anlamında E yazınız:

…….Farklı kaynak kitaplardan okuyarak ……Dinleyerek (radyo,kaset,cd vs)

……Kelime listeleri hazırlayarak ……Diyalog öğrenerek

……..İzleyerek (video,TV, film,vs) ……Sözlük kullanmadan okuyarak

……Sözlük kullanarak okuma yaparak ……..İngilizce dergi, kitap, vs

okuyarak

……Şarkılar öğrenerek ……..Sınıf arkadaşlarımla

konuşarak

……Yabancılarla konuşarak …….. Bilgisayarda çalışarak

……Çeviri yaparak ………Kendi konuşmamızı

kaydederek

……Arkadaşlarımla çalışarak ……. Telaffuz ve tonlamaya

odaklanarak

178

Diğer (Lütfen belirtiniz)

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………

179

Appendix 3. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Version for Speakers of

Other Languages (SILL)

1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or Picture of the word to help me remember the word a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 4. I remember a new English word by making a mental Picture of a situation in which the word might be used a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 5. I use rhymes to remember new English words. a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 6. I use flashcards to remember new English words a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 7. I physically act out new English words a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 8.I review English lessons often a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 10. I say or write new English words several times a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 11. I try to talk like native speakers a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 12. I practice the sounds of English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 13. I use the English words I know in different ways a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 14. I start conversations in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always

180

15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English org o to movies spoken in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 16. I read for pleasure in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 18. I first skim an English passage then go back and read carefully a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 20. I try to find patterns in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 22. I try not to translate word-for-word a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 25. When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 27. I read English without looking up every new word a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 29. If I can’t think of an English word I use a word or phrase that means the same thing a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always

181

32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 34. I plan my Schedule so I will have enough time to study English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 35. I look for people I can talk to in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 38. I think about my progress in learning English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using english a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 40. I encourage myself to speak Englsh even when I am afraid of making mistakes a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 41. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 45. If I do not understand something in English I ask the other person to slow down or say it again a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 47. I practice English with other students a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 48. I ask for help from English speakers a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always

182

49. I ask questions in English a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always 50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers a) never b) rarely c) sometimes d) usually e) always

183

APPENDIX 4. Cambridge Young Learners Proficiency Tests Starter And Movers

(Sample Questions)

184

185

186

187

Appendix 5. PALS: Performance Assessment for Language Students

Task Completion 1 -- Minimal completion of the task and/or responses frequently inappropriate

2 -- Partial completion of the task, responses mostly appropriate yet undeveloped

3 -- Completion of the task, responses appropriate and adequately developed

4 -- Superior completion of the task, responses appropriate and with elaboration

Comprehensibility 1 -- Responses barely comprehensible

2 -- Responses mostly comprehensible, requiring interpretation on the part of the listener

3 -- Responses comprehensible, requiring minimal interpretation on the part of the listener

4 -- Responses readily comprehensible, requiring no interpretation on the part of the listener

Fluency 1 -- Speech halting and uneven with long pauses and/or incomplete thoughts

2 -- Speech choppy and/or slow with frequent pauses, few or no incomplete thoughts

3 -- Some hesitation but manages to continue and complete thoughts 4 -- Speech continuous with few pauses or stumbling Pronunciation 1 -- Frequently interferes with communication 2 -- Occasionally interferes with communication 3 -- Does not interfere with communication 4 -- Enhances communication Vocabulary 1 -- Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary 2 -- Somewhat inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary 3 -- Adequate and accurate use of vocabulary 4 -- Rich use of vocabulary Grammar 1 -- Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of basic language structures 2 -- Emerging use of basic language structures 3 -- Emerging control of basic language structures 4 -- Control of basic language structures

188

Appendix 6. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)

Yes No Not sure

It is easier for children than adults to learn a second language

Some people have a special ability for learning a foreign language

People in my country are very good at learning second languages

It’s easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to

learn another one

People who are good at mathematics or science are not good at

learning foreign languages

I have a special ability for learning foreign languages

Women are better than men at learning foreign languages

People who speak more than one language are very intelligent

Everyone can learn to speak a second language

Some languages are easier than others

It is easier to speak than understand a foreign language

It is easier to read than to write a foreign language

If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would

it take them to speak it very well?

a) Less than one year

b) 1 to 2 years

c) 3 to 5 years

It is necessary to learn about English-speaking cultures to speak

English

It is best to learn English in an English-speaking country

The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning

new words

The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning

grammar

Learning a foreign language is different than learning another

academic subjects

The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning to

translate from my own language

It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation

You shouldn’t say anything in English until you say it correctly

It’s OK to guess if you don’t know a word in English

189

Yes No Not sure

I enjoy practicing English with native speakers

It is important to repeat and practice a lot

I feel shy speaking English with other people

If beginning students are allowed to make mistakes in English it will

be difficult for them to speak correctly later on

It is important to practice with cassettes/tapes, or CD Roms

I believe I will learn to speak English very well

People in my country believe that it is important to speak a foreign

language

I would like to learn English so that I can get to know people living in

other countries better

If I learn to speak English very well, I will have better job

opportunities

I would like to have friends who are native speakers

190

Appendix 7. Personal Language Goals and Self-Assessment

SHORT-TERM GOALS Please rate your current ability in English Reading: 1 2 3 4 5 Listening: 1 2 3 4 5 Speaking: 1 2 3 4 5 Writing : 1 2 3 4 5 Realistically, what are your goals for this term? Reading : 1 2 3 4 5 Listening : 1 2 3 4 5 Speaking : 1 2 3 4 5 Writing : 1 2 3 4 5 What aspect of language do you think you need to focus on this term?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

LONG –TERM GOALS What are your long terms goals for English?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What is the English level you need to reach for your long term goals? Reading : 1 2 3 4 5 Listening: 1 2 3 4 5 Speaking: 1 2 3 4 5 Writing : 1 2 3 4 5

191

Appendix 8. Summary of Think-aloud Protocols (Pilot Study) Student Group Activity 1

(Reading and summarizing an event)

Activity 2 (Vocabulary List)

Activity 3 (Talking about the differences)

Activity 4 (Writing a short composition)

Student 1 Control Asked the teacher about the unknown words, Avoided using the advanced vocabulary

He would create a story

Explained the differences in the picture Missing some grammatical points

Wanted to use advanced vocabulary and did not substitute with easier ones

Student 2 Experimental Explained the event using simple vocabulary. Used clues in the text. (used the strategy instructed)

She would group the words: school objects, household items (used the strategy instructed)

Explained the differences in the picture Missing some grammatical points (used the strategy instructed)

Successfully used substitution So – because Devil—not angel – not good (used the strategy instructed)

Student 3 Control Used many Turkish words in the summary

used an alphabetical order

First-second picture: could not substitute, asked the teacher

Avoided using the advanced vocabulary she chose

Student 4 Experimental Avoided using the advanced vocabulary (meet, realize)

He would group the words (used the strategy instructed)

First-second picture: used substitution (used the strategy instructed)

Successfully used substitution, did not ask for any words (used the strategy instructed)

Student 5 Control Avoided using the advanced vocabulary (understand, realize)

She would write a dialogue

Could not substitute, speech missing many grammatical points

Avoided using the advanced vocabulary she chose – no substitution even for simple words

Student 6 Experimental

Explained the event using simple vocabulary. (used the strategy instructed)

She would group the words: school objects, household items (used the strategy instructed)

Successfully summarized all the differences in one sentence (used the strategy instructed)

Used organizational planning for the composition (used the strategy instructed)

192

Appendix 9. Paired Samples T-test Results for the Experimental Group: Pre and

Post-tests (Pilot Study)

Tests N x S t df p Starter Reading Pre-test

17

20,23 2,41 -3,728

16

.002

Starter Reading Post-test

17

22,29

1,49

Starter Listening Pre-test

17

15,35 2,62 -5,032

16

.000

Starter Listening Post-test

17

18,29

1,15

Starter Speaking Pre-test

17

10,70

3,94

-7,465

16

.000

Starter Speaking Post-test

17

18,05

4,56

Movers Reading Pre-test

17

21,35

6,57

-2,47

16

.025 Movers Reading

Post-test

17

24,23

6,86

Movers Listening Pre-test

17

13,94

5,00

-5,876

16

.000 Movers Listening

Post-test

17

18,82

3,64

Movers Speaking Pre-test

17

9,0

3,53

-4,764

16

.000

Movers Speaking Post-test

17

14,82

5,24

193

Appendix 10. Paired Samples T-test Results for the Control Group: Pre and Post-

tests (Pilot Study)

Tests N x S t df p Starter Reading Pre-test

17

20,52

1,90 -1,78

16

.094 Starter Reading

Post-test

17

21,17

2,18


17

15,41

2,93

-3,31

16

.004


17

17,82

1,07

Starter Speaking Post-test

17

10,17

2,89

-5,42

16

.000 Starter Speaking

Pre-test

17

14,58

3,31

Movers Reading Pre-test

17

23,29

6,32

-1,30

16

.210 Movers Reading

Post-test

17

24,82

5,82

Movers Listening Pre-test

17

15,11

3,47

-2,73

16

.015 Movers Listening

Post-test

17

17,47

1,84

Movers Speaking Pre-test

17 3,06 4,25

-6,49

16

.000

Movers Speaking Post-test

17 4,69

194

APPENDIX 11. Sample Group Discussion Held at the end of the Strategies-based

Instruction

T: In the first week of the strategy training, we did a listening activity. Do you

remember what we did in selective attention and prediction strategies? How did we

apply these strategies?

S1: We first skimmed at the titles in the worksheet and tried to guess about the

vocabulary we would hear. For example, the conversations were taking place at a café,

so we guessed what we can eat and drink at a café.

S2: There was a book on the table, by just looking at the cover page; we predicted the

words in the book. Then you read a few pages from the book and we wrote down the

words we had predicted. And then for selective attention, we focused on the verbs only

and tried to write them down as you were reading.

T: Ok, very good. Did these strategies help you then?

S1: Yes, it worked a lot. Instead of trying to understand all the things we focused on one

part and that made our job much easier. We could easily catch the words.

S3: Yes, it was very helpful and easy.

T: Ok. Have you used these strategies in any other activities?

S2: Sometimes in Turkish lessons we have some questions about prediction. It is a very

similar strategy.

S4: Yes, the questions at the beginning of the text make us think about the text we are

going to read.

T: Does it become easier to understand then?

S1: Yes, exactly.

195

S2: Yes.

T: Do you do anything about these in English lessons?

S5: Teacher, in English lessons we do word hunting, isn’t it also selective attention?

T: Yes, we can say that it is selective attention in reading or writing. We did it in

listening and reading. Can you use these strategies in your daily lives?

Ss: Yes.

S6: Teacher, it is not only for English lessons. You can use these strategies in any

learning activity.

T: Ok, if I made you listen to a text and find the age, hobbies and the things a specific

person can do, what would you do? The text is very long but the information you need

is limited. What would you do?

Ss: Selective attention. We would focus on this part of the task.

T: Ok, very good. In the second week… We worked on some reading texts.

S1: We combined the words or guessed the meaning of words looking at the parts that

we already know.

T: Ok and we drew a table in which there were the question words. Do you remember

it?

Ss: Ah yes.

T: How did it help you?

S1: We checked our understanding by focusing on the question and answer.

196

T: But how did it help you after you learnt?

S7: In the exams it is very helpful

S4: Before I learnt that strategy I always had problems with the question words “who”

and “whose”. But after I drew that table I learnt that I will write a person’s name after

who and whose means something else.

T: Ok, very good. Do you remember the list of words I gave to you?

S2: Yes, we grouped the words which are in the same category and it was much easier

for us to memorize them. We all used a different grouping.

T: What does it show us? I mean all of these different groupings?

S7: Everybody has his own way of memorizing or learning.

T: Ok, good. Do you remember the deduction strategy?

S1: We used the parts we know in the compound nouns and tried to use clues to

understand the meaning of the words.

T: Do these strategies help you?

S4: Yes, exactly.

T: We wrote a composition. Do you remember what we did then?

S2: We first wrote the characteristics of the people we would introduce shortly.

S5: We wrote their characteristics in a box and then wrote the composition.

T: But did we write the full sentences?

197

S4: No, for example instead of saying “he is 12 years old” we wrote “12”. Then by

combining all the characteristics, we created an essay.

T: Ok, how did this strategy help you?

S1: We could plan our composition and did not forget what to write in the composition.

S3: We saved time.

S6: At first we had what to write in the boxes and organized our composition. Thus, we

didn’t need to go back and forth for the things we forgot to write. It was very organized.

S3: Sometimes you miss a detail and you write so many things afterwards that it is

impossible to add that detail somewhere in the back. When you use organizational

planning you do not experience these kinds of problems.

S5: I agree.

T: I see, very good. We learnt some speaking strategies as well.

S4: Yes, we had more self confidence. You told us to focus on what the other person is

saying and reward ourselves after accomplishing the task. And more importantly when

we forgot the meaning of a word, instead of trying to remember it, you told us to

describe or paraphrase the word. This was also very helpful. By doing this we can make

the other speaker help us about the meaning of the word.

T: We did a voice recording. Actually, we did it twice. Did speaking strategies help you

then?

S3: Teacher I use this strategy with my foreign friends in msn, and I use the speaking

strategies by encouraging myself for example.

198

S1: We can use the speaking strategies in writing as well. For example, sometimes we

cannot remember the exact word we need in a writing exam. We can just describe or

explain the word and go on our composition.

T: Did these strategies help you in recordings?

S1: I forgot the word “second” and said “Picture 2” during these recordings. It helped

me then.

S3: I forgot the meaning of a word in the picture. I used something else.

T: Do you remember how we substituted the words during strategy training?

S5: Yes, there was “bald” in the list and we simply said “no hair”.

S3: For race car I used Formula 1.

T: This is very helpful in speaking tasks.

S4: Teacher I use it in taboo game. For example I am going to explain the word “child”.

We can say he goes to school, etc. This strategy is very helpful in taboo.

T: Yes, you are right. The following week we learnt to find rhymes. A goat in a boat, A

mouse in a house, etc. Was it really helpful or did we do it just for fun?

S4: When I use rhymes I can better understand both the meaning and the pronunciation

of the words.

S7: There was a phrase “a frog on a log”. We knew frog, but we didn’t know log.

Rhyming helps a lot both about the meaning and the pronunciation.

T: This year the program for English lessons is over. Would you like to have a program

with a different format or would you like to have the same strategy training for next

year?

199

Ss: Strategy training.

T: Do you think that it was really helpful?

Ss: Yes, exactly.

S4: It was very helpful.

S3: Also the lessons were very enjoyable.

S3: We can learn more speaking strategies.

S7: Absolutely I want to learn new strategies.

T: Ok, thank you all for your contribution.

200

Appendix 12. Talking about Differences during the Pre-test and Post-test

201

APPENDIX 13 . Sample Picture used in Think-aloud Protocols

Source: Lawday, C. & MacAndrew, R. (2004). Aladdin. Oxford University Press: New

York

202

Appendix 14. Sample Activity Worksheet for Describing Things

GROUP 1

No Turkish, No Body Language! Have Fun, Good Luck!

A1

Breakfast A2

Classroom

A3 Fly

A4 Crocodile

A5 Newspaper

B1 Notebook

B2 Computer

B3 Bank

B4 Mouse

B5 Einstein

C1 Hat

C2 Shark

C3 Bear

C4 Moon

C5 Teacher

D1 Umbrella

D2 Chair

D3 Cherry

D4 Sofa

D5 Facebook

E1 Carrot

E2 Snow

E3 Door

E4 Lamp

E5 Flower

F1 Horse

F2 Farm

F3 Television

F4 Telephone

F5 Singer

G1 Swimming

pool

G2 Happy

G3 Milk

G4 Coffee

G5 Park

H1

H2 H3 H4 H5

I1

I2 I3 I4 I5

J1

J2 J3 J4 J5

K1

K2 K3 K4 K5

L1

L2 L3 L4 L5

M1

M2 M3 M4 M5

N1

N2 N3 N4 N5

O1

O2 O3 O4 O5

203

GROUP 2

No Turkish, No Body Language! ONLY ENGLISH! Have Fun, Good Luck!

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

H1 Tea

H2 Bird

H3 Ice-cream

H4 Paint

H5 Clown

I1 Kitchen

I2 Dolphin

I3 Ball

I4 Bookshelf

I5 Zebra

J1 Winter

J2 Lady Gaga

J3 Table

J4 Sugar

J5 Butterfly

K1 Cafe

K2 Dog

K3 Piano

K4 Purple

K5 Dress

L1 Family

L2 Cheese

L3 Dirty

L4 Wardrobe

L5 Bear

M1 Zoo

M2 Elephant

M3 Nurse

M4 Water

M5 Shoes

N1 Birthday

N2 Green Grocer

N3 Party

N4 Car

N5 Sleep

204

Appendix 15. Sample Picture Used in Describing Pictures

Source: Macmillan Heinemann Teacher Materials

205

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL DETAILS

Name: Duygu İŞPINAR AKÇAYOĞLU

Place and Date of Birth: Adana- 11 December 1979

E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

2011 (PhD) Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences

English Language Teaching Department

2005 (MA) Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences

English Language Teaching Department

1997-2002 (BA) Çukurova University

Faculty of Education, English Language Teaching Department

1993- 1996 Adana Anafartalar Lisesi

EXPERIENCE

2007 - ……. Adana Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi (English Teacher)

2004- 2007 II. İnönü İlköğretim Okulu Seyhan- Adana (English Teacher)

2002–2004 Fatih Sultan Mehmet İlköğretim Okulu Saimbeyli-Adana (English

Teacher)

2002 United States Air Force Escort Team (Translator)

2001-2002 Başkent University Gönen Schools (Student Teacher)

PRESENTATION IN CONFERENCE

11-12 April 2003 The Role of Young Learners’ Background in the Usage of

Language Learning Strategies

Form Focused Instruction INGED - Marmara University

mailto:[email protected]

206

ACADEMIC ARTICLE(S) AND REWARDS

Okan, Z. & İşpınar, D. (2009). Gifted students’ perceptions of learning English as a

foreign language. Educational Research and Review, 4 (4), 117-126.

2010 European Language Label Encouragement Award

Documents

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY ...son Erdem AKÇAYOĞLU for trying to protect each word file he saw in the screen by closing it and saying “This is mummy’s important file!”