Page 61 - 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. 61
Gifted Children’s Drawings and Significant Others’ Needs
tem was selected as it is one of the most recent tools for family drawing
analysis enabling the viewer to focus on the emotional tone of the paint-
ing, while detailed information is offered about the validity of the scale.
Inter-rater Pearson r values are reported as follows: Vitality/Creativity: r =
0.90, Family Pride/Happiness: r = 0.76, Vulnerability: r = 0.87, Emotional Dis-
tance/Isolation: r = 0.57, Stress/Anger: r = 0.77, Role Reversal: r = 0.73, Curios-
ity/Disorganization: r = 0.68, General Pathology: r = 0.79. Finally, it gives the
benefit for the judges ‘to evaluate the drawing using an overall judgment
dimension rather than searching specific design symbols’ (Fury et al., 1997, p.
1163).
In order to score the Family and the Class Drawings, we adapted seven out
of eight dimensions of the original scale, ‘adapted’ to the needs of our study.
For instance, instead of ‘distance/absence of the mother figure’ we assessed
the ‘distance/absence of the teacher.’ Eventually, we employed seven emo-
tional dimensions for each dyads – of Family and Class drawings.
Results
The first part of this paper analyses the qualitative data analysis using the
content thematic analysis. Specifically the variables assessed are: ‘Parents’ re-
quests,’ ‘Behaviour difficulties,’ ‘Teachers’ reports/comments’ as reported by
parents, and ‘Children’s abilities as reported by parents.’ The categories re-
vealed for each variable derived from three judges. Three postgraduate stu-
dents of the Athens University School Psychology Program conferred and
agreed before the deduction of the thematic categories. All the qualitative
variables were treated as a multiple responses question.
The second part analyses the Family and Class Drawings of four children.
All the drawings were graded by the same three judges with a 7-point scale,
from 1 ‘low degree of the dimension’ to 7 ‘high degree of the dimension,’
based on the FDGRS (Fury et al., 1997). The mean scores of the three judges
were used for each rating.
Frequency Distributions
Table 1 presents frequency distribution of parents’ requests to the Laboratory
for Creativity Development. The most frequent request was about getting
advice on appropriate utilization and further development of their child’s
skills: ‘How can we help him/her develop his/her skills through activities that
are appropriate to his/her age?’ was a very common question. The next more
frequent request was about the identification of giftedness of their child.
Furthermore, parents also reported several types of difficulties that their
59
tem was selected as it is one of the most recent tools for family drawing
analysis enabling the viewer to focus on the emotional tone of the paint-
ing, while detailed information is offered about the validity of the scale.
Inter-rater Pearson r values are reported as follows: Vitality/Creativity: r =
0.90, Family Pride/Happiness: r = 0.76, Vulnerability: r = 0.87, Emotional Dis-
tance/Isolation: r = 0.57, Stress/Anger: r = 0.77, Role Reversal: r = 0.73, Curios-
ity/Disorganization: r = 0.68, General Pathology: r = 0.79. Finally, it gives the
benefit for the judges ‘to evaluate the drawing using an overall judgment
dimension rather than searching specific design symbols’ (Fury et al., 1997, p.
1163).
In order to score the Family and the Class Drawings, we adapted seven out
of eight dimensions of the original scale, ‘adapted’ to the needs of our study.
For instance, instead of ‘distance/absence of the mother figure’ we assessed
the ‘distance/absence of the teacher.’ Eventually, we employed seven emo-
tional dimensions for each dyads – of Family and Class drawings.
Results
The first part of this paper analyses the qualitative data analysis using the
content thematic analysis. Specifically the variables assessed are: ‘Parents’ re-
quests,’ ‘Behaviour difficulties,’ ‘Teachers’ reports/comments’ as reported by
parents, and ‘Children’s abilities as reported by parents.’ The categories re-
vealed for each variable derived from three judges. Three postgraduate stu-
dents of the Athens University School Psychology Program conferred and
agreed before the deduction of the thematic categories. All the qualitative
variables were treated as a multiple responses question.
The second part analyses the Family and Class Drawings of four children.
All the drawings were graded by the same three judges with a 7-point scale,
from 1 ‘low degree of the dimension’ to 7 ‘high degree of the dimension,’
based on the FDGRS (Fury et al., 1997). The mean scores of the three judges
were used for each rating.
Frequency Distributions
Table 1 presents frequency distribution of parents’ requests to the Laboratory
for Creativity Development. The most frequent request was about getting
advice on appropriate utilization and further development of their child’s
skills: ‘How can we help him/her develop his/her skills through activities that
are appropriate to his/her age?’ was a very common question. The next more
frequent request was about the identification of giftedness of their child.
Furthermore, parents also reported several types of difficulties that their
59
