Page 70 - 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. 70
aterini D. Gari et al.
gists, and also in collaboration with class teachers. Concerning the Family
Drawings based on the Family Drawing Global Rating Scale guidelines, it
is clear that three out of four of the cases scored high in the negative di-
mension ‘susceptibility,’ a dimension that seeks to assess feelings of anxi-
ety, uncertainty and emotional ambivalence. Indeed, parents of those cases –
Mary’s, George’s, and John’s – reported particular difficulties experienced by
the child in their relationships either with peers, or siblings, or with adults,
and also in some particular fears, and in extreme needs for perfection. An-
other negative dimension that also prevailed was that of ‘role reversal’ based
on the relative sizes of self and parents’ figures. High scores in this dimension
are implying the child’s feelings of parental difficulties in accepting their gift-
edness and their parents’ powerlessness (Fury et al., 1997).
Concerning the Class Drawings, the child’s choice not to portray himself, his
peers or the teacher or the general absence of any person from their class-
room plan indicates clearly the child’s negative feelings associated with class-
room, learning process and difficulties in interacting with peers. Feelings of
perfectionism and compulsion, in terms of performance in the school con-
text, as expressed through persistence numerical-metric details, are clearly
apparent in Mary’s case, while insecurity and social anxiety that the child ex-
periences in school were reflected through chaotic and intense lines, as in
George’s plan. However, positive emotions, a sense of joy and warmth for
school were also expressed, like in John’s drawing, through the depiction of
the child’s himself, along with classmates and the class teacher as smiling
faces.
Finally, a sloppy way of design (stick figures) and harsh lines which justify
the high rankings in the negative dimensions are clearly presented, espe-
cially in Mary’s and George’s cases. As some authors claim, the immature or
careless design may reflects children’s trends of isolation, indifference in in-
terpersonal relationships (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Spigelman, Lungs, Sweden
Spigelman, & Englesson, 1992). However, as noted before, poor investment
and lack of details may indicate negativity or boredom towards the exami-
nation procedure (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Reynolds, 1978).
Projective measurements have been acclaimed as a useful set of tools that
can provide hints about the children’s emotional state (Goldner, Edelstein,
& Habshush, 2015). Particularly, a series of studies on children’s drawings de-
clares the validity of FDGRS, for detecting elements of distress and avoidance
(Fury et al., 1997; Goldner et al., 2015; Madigan, Ladd, & Goldberg, 2003; Pace,
Zavattini, & Tambelli, 2015) and assessing psychosocial adjustment in school
(Goldrner & Scharf, 2011; Pianta et al., 1999). Yet, according to the same au-
68
gists, and also in collaboration with class teachers. Concerning the Family
Drawings based on the Family Drawing Global Rating Scale guidelines, it
is clear that three out of four of the cases scored high in the negative di-
mension ‘susceptibility,’ a dimension that seeks to assess feelings of anxi-
ety, uncertainty and emotional ambivalence. Indeed, parents of those cases –
Mary’s, George’s, and John’s – reported particular difficulties experienced by
the child in their relationships either with peers, or siblings, or with adults,
and also in some particular fears, and in extreme needs for perfection. An-
other negative dimension that also prevailed was that of ‘role reversal’ based
on the relative sizes of self and parents’ figures. High scores in this dimension
are implying the child’s feelings of parental difficulties in accepting their gift-
edness and their parents’ powerlessness (Fury et al., 1997).
Concerning the Class Drawings, the child’s choice not to portray himself, his
peers or the teacher or the general absence of any person from their class-
room plan indicates clearly the child’s negative feelings associated with class-
room, learning process and difficulties in interacting with peers. Feelings of
perfectionism and compulsion, in terms of performance in the school con-
text, as expressed through persistence numerical-metric details, are clearly
apparent in Mary’s case, while insecurity and social anxiety that the child ex-
periences in school were reflected through chaotic and intense lines, as in
George’s plan. However, positive emotions, a sense of joy and warmth for
school were also expressed, like in John’s drawing, through the depiction of
the child’s himself, along with classmates and the class teacher as smiling
faces.
Finally, a sloppy way of design (stick figures) and harsh lines which justify
the high rankings in the negative dimensions are clearly presented, espe-
cially in Mary’s and George’s cases. As some authors claim, the immature or
careless design may reflects children’s trends of isolation, indifference in in-
terpersonal relationships (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Spigelman, Lungs, Sweden
Spigelman, & Englesson, 1992). However, as noted before, poor investment
and lack of details may indicate negativity or boredom towards the exami-
nation procedure (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Reynolds, 1978).
Projective measurements have been acclaimed as a useful set of tools that
can provide hints about the children’s emotional state (Goldner, Edelstein,
& Habshush, 2015). Particularly, a series of studies on children’s drawings de-
clares the validity of FDGRS, for detecting elements of distress and avoidance
(Fury et al., 1997; Goldner et al., 2015; Madigan, Ladd, & Goldberg, 2003; Pace,
Zavattini, & Tambelli, 2015) and assessing psychosocial adjustment in school
(Goldrner & Scharf, 2011; Pianta et al., 1999). Yet, according to the same au-
68
