Page 44 - Kukanja Gabrijelčič, Mojca, and Maruška Seničar Željeznov, eds. 2018. Teaching Gifted and Talented Children in A New Educational Era. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 44
die G. C. Malotaux-Christophersen, Sven A. C. Mathijssen, and Lianne Hoogeveen
Table 3 Mean Rating, of Characteristics and Talents, on a Scale from 1–6,
in Order of Rating Score
Characteristics and talents M SD Characteristics and talents M SD
Hardworking 5.29 1.16 Talented in computer sciences 4.54 1.53
Mathematically talented 5.30 1.01 Imaginative 4.28 1.50
Talented in Science 4.94 1.25 Liked by others 3.94 1.58
Persistent 4.82 1.29 Cooperative 3.84 1.60
Good technical skills 4.65 1.29 Talented in artistic areas 3.58 1.56
Creative 4.43 1.59 Makes friends easily 3.46 1.62
Talented in languages 4.67 1.35
(M = 31.09, SD = 21.36) than participants living in a city did (M = 21.34, SD =
14.01), t(94.61) = –299, p = 0.04. No significant difference in age between the
female pictures of participants, living in a rural area and participants living in
a city was detected.
In attributing characteristics and talents to an intelligent person, most par-
ticipants depicted an intelligent person as hardworking, persistent, and tal-
ented in mathematics and sciences. Having technical skills, being creative,
and talented in languages and computer sciences, was rated less important,
but still above average. Social skills and talent in artistic areas were rated av-
erage. One boy added ‘endless’ to the scale and rated hardworking, math-
ematically talented, talented in science and creative, as endless. In Table 3,
attributed characteristics and talents are displayed in order of rating.
Comparing ratings of talents and characteristics given by boys, with rat-
ings of talents and characteristics given by girls, some significant differences
were detected. Boys rated ‘technical skills’ and ‘talented in computer sci-
ences’ higher than the girls did. On the other hand, all characteristics linked to
social skills were rated higher by the girls; the girls rated ‘liked by others,’ ‘co-
operative’ and ‘making friends easily’ higher than the boys did, as is shown
in Table 4. Concerning the characteristics ‘hardworking,’ ‘persistent,’ ‘imagi-
native,’ and ‘talented in mathematics,’ ‘science,’ ‘languages’ or ‘arts,’ there was
no substantial difference detected between the genders.
Comparing ratings based on former primary education, a significant dif-
ference in the rating of ‘technical skills’ was perceived. Participants who at-
tended a pull out program or ‘Full time Gifted Education’ rated ‘technical
skills’ higher (M = 4.83, SD = 1.27) than participants, who attended ‘Traditional
Education’ (M = 4.41, SD = 1.29), t(218) = –2.44, p = 0.015. Comparing ratings
of participants who attended a pull-out program with participants who at-
tended ‘Full time Gifted Education,’ there was also a significant difference in
42
Table 3 Mean Rating, of Characteristics and Talents, on a Scale from 1–6,
in Order of Rating Score
Characteristics and talents M SD Characteristics and talents M SD
Hardworking 5.29 1.16 Talented in computer sciences 4.54 1.53
Mathematically talented 5.30 1.01 Imaginative 4.28 1.50
Talented in Science 4.94 1.25 Liked by others 3.94 1.58
Persistent 4.82 1.29 Cooperative 3.84 1.60
Good technical skills 4.65 1.29 Talented in artistic areas 3.58 1.56
Creative 4.43 1.59 Makes friends easily 3.46 1.62
Talented in languages 4.67 1.35
(M = 31.09, SD = 21.36) than participants living in a city did (M = 21.34, SD =
14.01), t(94.61) = –299, p = 0.04. No significant difference in age between the
female pictures of participants, living in a rural area and participants living in
a city was detected.
In attributing characteristics and talents to an intelligent person, most par-
ticipants depicted an intelligent person as hardworking, persistent, and tal-
ented in mathematics and sciences. Having technical skills, being creative,
and talented in languages and computer sciences, was rated less important,
but still above average. Social skills and talent in artistic areas were rated av-
erage. One boy added ‘endless’ to the scale and rated hardworking, math-
ematically talented, talented in science and creative, as endless. In Table 3,
attributed characteristics and talents are displayed in order of rating.
Comparing ratings of talents and characteristics given by boys, with rat-
ings of talents and characteristics given by girls, some significant differences
were detected. Boys rated ‘technical skills’ and ‘talented in computer sci-
ences’ higher than the girls did. On the other hand, all characteristics linked to
social skills were rated higher by the girls; the girls rated ‘liked by others,’ ‘co-
operative’ and ‘making friends easily’ higher than the boys did, as is shown
in Table 4. Concerning the characteristics ‘hardworking,’ ‘persistent,’ ‘imagi-
native,’ and ‘talented in mathematics,’ ‘science,’ ‘languages’ or ‘arts,’ there was
no substantial difference detected between the genders.
Comparing ratings based on former primary education, a significant dif-
ference in the rating of ‘technical skills’ was perceived. Participants who at-
tended a pull out program or ‘Full time Gifted Education’ rated ‘technical
skills’ higher (M = 4.83, SD = 1.27) than participants, who attended ‘Traditional
Education’ (M = 4.41, SD = 1.29), t(218) = –2.44, p = 0.015. Comparing ratings
of participants who attended a pull-out program with participants who at-
tended ‘Full time Gifted Education,’ there was also a significant difference in
42
