Problem-solving skills employed by gifted children and their peers in public primary schools in Turkey
Main Article Content
In this study I explored whether or not the high intellectual potential of gifted children helps them cope more easily than other children do with problems, and also examined the children’s own assessments of the problem-solving approaches that are thought to affect their social and emotional development. Results showed that children’s problem-solving skills are not dependent solely on how academically gifted they are. Therefore, even if the ability to utilize intellectual capacity differs, the development of effective problem-solving skills and consequent productive-thinking skills will contribute to individuals making better decisions during their lifetime and to developing more positive interpersonal relationships. These are issues that merit special attention and further research.
Children who either manifest or have the potential to show superior performance skills in comparison with their peers in terms of general or special skills are described as gifted (Akarsu, 2001; Ataman, 1998; Callahan, Lundberg, & Hunsaker, 1993; Davaslıgil, 2004; Renzulli & Reis, 1986; Richert, 1990; Sak, 2011; Sayler, 1994). Due to these differences and superior skills, the issue of how to educate these children effectively has been discussed by many researchers from different perspectives (Hedricks, 2009; Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoven, 2011; Malkoç, 2004; Yoon, 2009). There is a consensus among researchers with regard to creating conditions that would meet the special needs of educating gifted students while taking needed precautions and making appropriate modifications. In field studies (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Enç, 2011; Hyatt & Cross, 2009; Renzulli & Reis, 1986; Sak, 2010; Şenol, 2011), researchers have expressed concerns about both providing improvements to existing academic programs for developing the strengths of gifted children and the need for creating conditions, atmosphere, and opportunities to strengthen their weaknesses.
Gifted children, who form a privileged group, have different developmental features from their peers. This difference may result from these children showing more rapid development in some areas and also from the distribution and composition of the features they have (Akarsu, 2004). Many researchers (Buescher, 1991; Enç, 2011; Metin, 1999; Milgram, 1991; Winstanley, 2004) asserted similar views about the social and emotional problems of these gifted children, which may be caused by either perceiving differently or being perceived differently. Researchers (Ciğerci, 2006; Özoğlu, 2004; Yürük, 2003) have pointed out the negative effects that perceiving differently or being perceived differently have on social relationships within an individual’s close environment and drew attention to the various emotional difficulties in the case of not meeting expected social needs. In studies in which researchers have investigated the social and emotional difficulties that gifted children may encounter within the dimension of family and peers and have focused on the troubles experienced by these individuals, two points of view are highlighted. First, the term gifted negatively affects the child’s social relations within their close environment (Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993; Heller, 2004; Reichenberg & Landau, 2009). Second, the child may feel inner pressure such as fear, anxiety, and/or depression when attempting to satisfy the high expectations of those in their close environment, may become deeply disappointed in the case that they cannot fulfill these expectations, and may manifest a variety of reactions (Berlin, 2009; Moore, 2006; Moulton, Moulton, Housewright, & Bailey, 1998; Webb, 2002).
Gifted children, like all children, grow by confronting problems and trying to find solutions for them. Ideally, in the process of overcoming the difficulties faced, an individual would use his or her own knowledge and skills and exert the effort needed for the solution rather than waiting for a decision or help from others (Bingham, 2004). Problem situations, which may arise at any time and involve mental effort for resolution, may require different reactions and behaviors according to the dimensions of the problem. An individual’s self- perception in problem solving, style of focusing on the problem, skill for creating solutions, and decision making have an effect on the process of overcoming the problem, whereby an individual’s problem-solving skills are significantly affected by personal experiences, characteristics, attitudes, and values. Even if aptitudes or attitudes required for the process of problem solving differ according to the individual and the problem, even so the process of finding solutions to problems will consist of a series of efforts including the noticing and solving of the problem (Güçlü, 2003). During this process, in which the cognitive, affective, and behavioral capacities of intelligence should be managed effectively, problem-solving skills will help the individual to understand himself/herself and others and allow him/her to coexist in harmony with others (Heppner & Baker, 1997). It has also been found that there is a positive correlation between being gifted and effectively solving complex problems (Schiever & Maker, 2003). This may be a result of intelligence as the source of an individual’s differences and may have a predictive effect on a variety of processes (Stankov & Roberts, 1997).
My aim in this study was to investigate gifted children’s own perceptions about the problem-solving skills of gifted children by using various variables and by comparing the gifted children with their peers in the process of problem solving. I also examined the relationships among problem-solving skill levels, gender, and age. Lastly, in conjunction with related literature, I evaluated the social and emotional development of gifted children.
Method
Research Design
I used a descriptive research design for this study, based on a general screening model and using a quantitative research technique.
Sample and Procedure
I conducted the study in the spring term of 2011-2012 with 100 gifted students enrolled at the Sivas Science and Art Center, and 102 normal students in the same age group who were enrolled at Mevlana Primary School (see Table 1 for demographic statistics). The students were identified as gifted according to the intelligence tests applied by experts on the staff at the Science and Arts Center. Criteria for acceptance as a student at these centers are determined according to the regulations and guidelines for educational institutions in Turkey. In order to compare the problem-solving skills of gifted students with those of normal students, both groups of participants completed the Problem Solving Inventory for Children (see Measures).
Table 1. Demographic Statistics of the Sample
Measure
The Problem Solving Inventory for Children (PSIC; Serin, Bulut Serin, & Saygılı, 2010) was developed for the purpose of measuring problem-solving approaches and behaviors, and the self-perception of primary-level students as regards their level of problem-solving skills. It is a self-evaluated scale and consists of 24 items classified into three factors labeled as confidence, self-control, and avoidance. Responses are measured on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Scores can range from 24 to 120. In the calculation process, the points of the items which reflect the tendency towards greater self-control and avoidance and are located in the second (18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 49, 58) and the third (41, 43, 59, 62, 64) factors, are reverse coded. Higher total scores on the scale indicate how proficient in problem solving the individual considers him/herself to be. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is 0.80 for the scale as a whole and values for the factors of confidence, self-control, and avoidance are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha Values of Scale Factors
Data Analyses
SPSS version 15.00 was used to analyze the data obtained. Before determining main statistical analysis, the one-sample Kolmogorov- Smirnov test was used to identify whether or not the data were suitable for normal distribution (see Table 3). Because the sample complied with the normal distribution, an independent samples, paired t test was used to assess the binary variable and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify whether or not there was a difference between the gifted and nongifted groups. A Scheffé test was applied in order to identify which variables were responsible for any difference found. Lastly, correlation analysis was applied in examining the relationships among the subscales. The level of significance was set at p < .05.
Table 3. Sample Compliance with Normal Distribution
Note. The sample complies with the normal distribution (p > .05).
Results
As can be seen in Table 4, there was no significant difference found between gender and problem solving in relation to the scores for confidence, self-control, avoidance, total problem-solving skill (p > .05).
Table 4. Comparison of Problem-Solving Scale Results According to Gender
As can be seen in Table 5, there was no significant difference found between gifted and nongifted students and problem solving in relation to the scores for confidence, self-control, avoidance, and total problem-solving skill (p > .05).
Table 5. Comparison of Problem-Solving Scale Results According to Whether or Not Participants are Gifted
As can be seen in Table 6, there was no significant difference found in the confidence scores and academic grades of the students based on grade at school (p > .05). However, there was a significant relationship found between academic grades and self-control, avoidance, and total scores. As academic grades increased, there was a significant decrease in total scores for self-control (p < .05; F = 3.79; intragroup SD = 2; intergroup SD = 199) and avoidance (p < .05; F = 4, 68; intragroup SD = 2; intergroup SD = 199) (see Table 7).
Table 6. Comparison of Problem-Solving Scale Results According to Grade
As can be seen in Table 8, there was a significant difference found between 4th and 6th grades in self-control, avoidance, and total scores (p < .05), no significant difference was found between 5th and 6th grades (p > .05).
Table 8. Scheffé Test Results as Grade Levels
Discussion
From my results it can be seen that no significant differences were detected in gifted students’ level of self-perception of problem-solving skills in comparison to their nongifted peers. There were also no significant differences found in gifted versus nongifted students’ scores on the PSIC for confidence, self-control, avoidance, and total problem-solving skill. In recent years, researchers investigating gifted children by comparing them with their peers have tended to focus more on the gifted children’s sense of self (Bencik, 2012; Hoogeveen et al., 2011; Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Kleine, 2008; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001), self-proficiency beliefs (Flett, Panico, & Hewitt, 2011; Malpass, O’Neil, & Hocevar, 2010), and aspects like creativity (Huang, 2012; Kanlı, 2008; Mohamed, Maker, & Lubart, 2012) and leadership (Acar, 2007).
However, my study was limited to comparing the problem-solving skills of a group of gifted students at one educational institution with a group of nongifted students at one other school. Results can, therefore, not be generalized to other populations of other aspects of the characteristics and social and emotional development of the gifted child. Studies are needed in which the relationship of other aspects of the characteristics of the gifted child to their social relations and emotional life are investigated. Prospective studies with regard to these subjects are important in terms of determining the possible negative impact involved in the process of social and emotional development, so that appropriate preventive precautions can be taken.
While some researchers assert that gifted children are superior to their peers in terms of social and emotional harmony, and that social and emotional problems are less prevalent within this group (Oğurlu, 2010; Vialle, Heaven, & Ciarrochi, 2007), others have noted that gifted children face difficulties such as isolation from their peers (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Gross, 2002; Schechter, Reis, & Colson, 1999) and, consequently, loneliness (Chan, 2002; Rimm, 2002), anxiety, and depression (Fonseca, 2011; Moore, 2006; Webb et al., 2004), in addition to the more serious problem of attempted suicide. Therefore, studies are needed in which the relationships of gifted children with family members, peers, and teachers are investigated, and in which the aim is to identify the social and emotional problems these children experience.
Conclusion
In this study I investigated the relationship between problem-solving skills and being gifted and found that children’s problem-solving skills are not solely dependent on how gifted they are. Therefore, regardless of intellectual capacity, the development of effective problem-solving skills and consequent productive- thinking skills contribute to better decision making over a lifetime, as well as the development of more positive interpersonal relationships. I believe that these topics merit special attention in education research.
References
Acar, S. (2007). Comparison of Raven SPM Plus test and Roets Leadership Rating Scale, 10-11 years’ validity, reliability, based on the work of initial norm of gifted and non-gifted students’ leadership qualities. Published master’s thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Akarsu, F. (2001). Gifted children, their families and their problems. [Üstün yetenekli çocuklar, aileleri ve sorunları]. Ankara, Turkey: Eduser.
Akarsu, F. (2004). Gifted and talented. In R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, & A. E. Bilgili (Eds.), A book of selected articles about gifted children (pp. 97-103) [Üstün Yetenekliler. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı]. Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation.
Ataman, A. (1998). Gifted and talented [Üstün Zekâlılar ve Üstün Yetenekliler]. Eskisehir, Turkey: Anadolu University Publishing.
Bencik, S. (2012). An examination of self-perceptions of children aged 12-14 years who are attending science and art centers [Bilim Sanat Merkezlerine devam eden 12–14 yaş grubu üstün yetenekli çocukların benlik algılarının incelenmesi]. Education and Science, 37, 3-16.
Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective: Student perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31, 217-223. http://doi.org/cq5xvr
Bingham, A. (2004). Development of problem-solving skills in children. (A. Ferhan Oguzkan, Trans.), Istanbul, Turkey: Ministry of Education Publishing.
Buescher, T. M. (1991). Gifted adolescents. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 382-401). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Callahan, C. M., Lundberg, A. C., & Hunsaker, S. L. (1993). The development of the Scale for Evaluation of Gifted Identification Instruments (SEGII). Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 133-139. http://doi.org/cpwtkt
Chan, D. W. (2002). Perceptions of giftedness and self-concepts among junior secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 243-252. http://doi.org/fcz63v
Ciğerci, C. Z. (2006). Self-esteem in gifted and non-gifted adolescents and the relationship between perception of the others and psychological symptoms: Comparison of high school and science high school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Institute of Social Sciences, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. A. (1993). Psychosocial diversity among gifted adolescents: An exploratory study of two groups. Roeper Review, 17, 181-185. http://doi.org/b7sxw4
Davaslıgil, Ü. (2004). Education of gifted and talented children. Paper presented at the 1st Turkey Gifted Children Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 23-25 September.
Enç, M. (2011). The rights of gifted children. In F. Levent (Ed.), Handbook for parents and teachers of gifted children’s rights (pp. 52-70) [Üstün yetenekli çocukların hakları el kitabı: anne-baba ve öğretmenler için el kitabı]. Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation Publications.
Flett, G. L., Panico, T., & Hewitt, P. L. (2011). Perfectionism, Type A behavior, and self-efficacy in depression and health symptoms among adolescents. Current Psychology, 30, 105-116. http://doi.org/fw93bh
Fonseca, C. (2011). Emotional intensity in gifted students: Helping kids cope with explosive feelings. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Musings: Gifted children and the gift of friendship. Open Space Communications, Understanding Our Gifted, 14, 27-29.
Güçlü, N. (2003). Problem solving skills of headmasters [Lise Müdürlerinin Problem Çözme Becerileri]. Journal of the Turkish Ministry of Education, 160, 272-300.
Hedricks, K. B. (2009). The impact of ability grouping on achievement, self-efficacy and classroom perceptions of gifted elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications of the Problem Solving Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 229-241.
Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Social-emotional characteristics of gifted accelerated and non-accelerated students in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 585-605. http://doi.org/bmfjcp
Huang, C. (2012). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1-35. http://doi.org/fzcwwd
Hyatt, L. A., & Cross, T. L. (2009). Understanding suicidal behavior of gifted students: Theory, factors, and cultural expectations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 537-556). Quebec, Canada: Springer.
Kanlı, E. (2008). Degree of problem-based learning in science and technology teaching and achievement levels of the normal mind and gifted students: The effect of level of creative thinking and motivation [Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin üstün ve normal zihin düzeyindeki öğrencilerin erişi, yaratici düşünme ve motivasyon düzeylerine etkisi]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Malkoç, T. (2004). Gifted children and music education. In R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, & A. E. Bilgili (Eds.), A book of selected articles about gifted children (pp. 169-177). [Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar ve Müzik Eğitimi]. Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation.
Malpass, J. R., O’Neil, H. F., & Hocevar, D., Jr. (2010). Self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 21, 281-288. http://doi.org/crdgsw
Metin, N. (1999). Gifted children [Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar]. Ankara, Turkey: Ozasama.
Milgram, R. M. (1991). Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mohamed, A., Maker, C. J., & Lubart, T. (2012). Exploring the domain specificity of creativity in children: The relationship between a non-verbal creative production test and creative problem- solving activities. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 2, 84-101.
Moore, M. M. (2006). Variations in text anxiety and locus of control orientation in achieving and underachieving gifted and non-gifted middle school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Moulton, P., Moulton, M., Housewright, M., & Bailey, K. (1998). Gifted & talented: Exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review, 21, 153-154. http://doi.org/ftcjd7
Oğurlu, Ü. (2010). Socialization and friendship relationships of talented and gifted children: A literature review [Üstün zekâlı ve yeteneklilerde sosyal uyum ve arkadaşlık ilişkileri: Literatür taraması]. Çukurova University, Journal of Faculty of Education, 3, 90-99.
Özoğlu, S. Ç. (2004). Guiding gifted students to seek counseling for psychological problems. In R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, & A. E. Bilgili (Eds.), A book of selected articles about gifted children (pp. 387-402). [Üstün yetenekli öğrencileri araştırmaya yöneltme ve psikolojik danışma sorunları] Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation Publishing.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average- ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 146-159. http://doi.org/bjzc7n
Reichenberg, A., & Landau, E. (2009). Families of gifted children. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 873-884). Quebec, Canada: Springer.
Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 23, 3-54.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative production. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), System and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Richert, E. S. (1990). Rampart problems and promising practices in identification. In N. Colengelove & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 81-96). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressure and social acceptance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13-19). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Sak, U. (2010). Educational programs and services for gifted students in Turkey. In J. Maker & S. Schiever (Eds.), Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.; pp. 432-441). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Sak, U. (2011). Features, descriptions and education of gifted children [Üstün zekâlılar: Özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri]. Ankara, Turkey: Maya Academy.
Sayler, M. (1994). Raising champions: A parents’ guide for nurturing their gifted children. Austin, TX: Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented.
Schechter, N. L., Reis, S. M., & Colson, E. R. (1999). The gifted child. In M. D. Levine, W. B. Carey, & A. C. Crocker (Eds.), Developmental behavioral pediatrics (3rd ed., pp. 653-662). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163-173). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Şenol, C. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of gifted children’s education programs: The example of BILSEM [Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM Örneği]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.
Serin, O., Bulut Serin, N., & Saygılı, G. (2010). Developing a problem solving inventory for primary school-level children [İlköğretim Düzeyindeki Çocuklar İçin Problem Çözme Envanteri’nin (ÇPÇE) Geliştirilmesi]. Online Primary Education, 9, 446-458.
Shechtman, Z., & Silektor, A. (2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34, 63-72. http://doi.org/fxtw3j
Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1997). Mental speed is not the ‘basic’ process of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 69-84. http://doi.org/ccwk4m
Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 13, 569-586. http://doi.org/fqt3wp
Webb, J. T. (2002). Existential depression in gifted individuals. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2004). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Winstanley, C. (2004). Too clever by half: A fair deal for gifted children. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Yoon, C.-H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203-216. http://doi.org/bctfxm
Yürük, A. (2003). A comparison of self-esteem in primary school-age normal-level and gifted students. Unpublished master’s thesis, HU Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Zhang, L.-F., & Postiglione, G. A. (2001). Thinking styles, self-esteem and socio-economic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1333-1346. http://doi.org/brmrpf
Acar, S. (2007). Comparison of Raven SPM Plus test and Roets Leadership Rating Scale, 10-11 years’ validity, reliability, based on the work of initial norm of gifted and non-gifted students’ leadership qualities. Published master’s thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Akarsu, F. (2001). Gifted children, their families and their problems. [Üstün yetenekli çocuklar, aileleri ve sorunları]. Ankara, Turkey: Eduser.
Akarsu, F. (2004). Gifted and talented. In R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, & A. E. Bilgili (Eds.), A book of selected articles about gifted children (pp. 97-103) [Üstün Yetenekliler. Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı]. Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation.
Ataman, A. (1998). Gifted and talented [Üstün Zekâlılar ve Üstün Yetenekliler]. Eskisehir, Turkey: Anadolu University Publishing.
Bencik, S. (2012). An examination of self-perceptions of children aged 12-14 years who are attending science and art centers [Bilim Sanat Merkezlerine devam eden 12–14 yaş grubu üstün yetenekli çocukların benlik algılarının incelenmesi]. Education and Science, 37, 3-16.
Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective: Student perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31, 217-223. http://doi.org/cq5xvr
Bingham, A. (2004). Development of problem-solving skills in children. (A. Ferhan Oguzkan, Trans.), Istanbul, Turkey: Ministry of Education Publishing.
Buescher, T. M. (1991). Gifted adolescents. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 382-401). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Callahan, C. M., Lundberg, A. C., & Hunsaker, S. L. (1993). The development of the Scale for Evaluation of Gifted Identification Instruments (SEGII). Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 133-139. http://doi.org/cpwtkt
Chan, D. W. (2002). Perceptions of giftedness and self-concepts among junior secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 243-252. http://doi.org/fcz63v
Ciğerci, C. Z. (2006). Self-esteem in gifted and non-gifted adolescents and the relationship between perception of the others and psychological symptoms: Comparison of high school and science high school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Institute of Social Sciences, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. A. (1993). Psychosocial diversity among gifted adolescents: An exploratory study of two groups. Roeper Review, 17, 181-185. http://doi.org/b7sxw4
Davaslıgil, Ü. (2004). Education of gifted and talented children. Paper presented at the 1st Turkey Gifted Children Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 23-25 September.
Enç, M. (2011). The rights of gifted children. In F. Levent (Ed.), Handbook for parents and teachers of gifted children’s rights (pp. 52-70) [Üstün yetenekli çocukların hakları el kitabı: anne-baba ve öğretmenler için el kitabı]. Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation Publications.
Flett, G. L., Panico, T., & Hewitt, P. L. (2011). Perfectionism, Type A behavior, and self-efficacy in depression and health symptoms among adolescents. Current Psychology, 30, 105-116. http://doi.org/fw93bh
Fonseca, C. (2011). Emotional intensity in gifted students: Helping kids cope with explosive feelings. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Musings: Gifted children and the gift of friendship. Open Space Communications, Understanding Our Gifted, 14, 27-29.
Güçlü, N. (2003). Problem solving skills of headmasters [Lise Müdürlerinin Problem Çözme Becerileri]. Journal of the Turkish Ministry of Education, 160, 272-300.
Hedricks, K. B. (2009). The impact of ability grouping on achievement, self-efficacy and classroom perceptions of gifted elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications of the Problem Solving Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 229-241.
Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Social-emotional characteristics of gifted accelerated and non-accelerated students in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 585-605. http://doi.org/bmfjcp
Huang, C. (2012). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1-35. http://doi.org/fzcwwd
Hyatt, L. A., & Cross, T. L. (2009). Understanding suicidal behavior of gifted students: Theory, factors, and cultural expectations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 537-556). Quebec, Canada: Springer.
Kanlı, E. (2008). Degree of problem-based learning in science and technology teaching and achievement levels of the normal mind and gifted students: The effect of level of creative thinking and motivation [Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin üstün ve normal zihin düzeyindeki öğrencilerin erişi, yaratici düşünme ve motivasyon düzeylerine etkisi]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Malkoç, T. (2004). Gifted children and music education. In R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, & A. E. Bilgili (Eds.), A book of selected articles about gifted children (pp. 169-177). [Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar ve Müzik Eğitimi]. Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation.
Malpass, J. R., O’Neil, H. F., & Hocevar, D., Jr. (2010). Self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 21, 281-288. http://doi.org/crdgsw
Metin, N. (1999). Gifted children [Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar]. Ankara, Turkey: Ozasama.
Milgram, R. M. (1991). Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mohamed, A., Maker, C. J., & Lubart, T. (2012). Exploring the domain specificity of creativity in children: The relationship between a non-verbal creative production test and creative problem- solving activities. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 2, 84-101.
Moore, M. M. (2006). Variations in text anxiety and locus of control orientation in achieving and underachieving gifted and non-gifted middle school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Moulton, P., Moulton, M., Housewright, M., & Bailey, K. (1998). Gifted & talented: Exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review, 21, 153-154. http://doi.org/ftcjd7
Oğurlu, Ü. (2010). Socialization and friendship relationships of talented and gifted children: A literature review [Üstün zekâlı ve yeteneklilerde sosyal uyum ve arkadaşlık ilişkileri: Literatür taraması]. Çukurova University, Journal of Faculty of Education, 3, 90-99.
Özoğlu, S. Ç. (2004). Guiding gifted students to seek counseling for psychological problems. In R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, & A. E. Bilgili (Eds.), A book of selected articles about gifted children (pp. 387-402). [Üstün yetenekli öğrencileri araştırmaya yöneltme ve psikolojik danışma sorunları] Istanbul, Turkey: Children’s Foundation Publishing.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average- ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 146-159. http://doi.org/bjzc7n
Reichenberg, A., & Landau, E. (2009). Families of gifted children. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 873-884). Quebec, Canada: Springer.
Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 23, 3-54.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative production. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), System and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Richert, E. S. (1990). Rampart problems and promising practices in identification. In N. Colengelove & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 81-96). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressure and social acceptance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13-19). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Sak, U. (2010). Educational programs and services for gifted students in Turkey. In J. Maker & S. Schiever (Eds.), Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.; pp. 432-441). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Sak, U. (2011). Features, descriptions and education of gifted children [Üstün zekâlılar: Özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri]. Ankara, Turkey: Maya Academy.
Sayler, M. (1994). Raising champions: A parents’ guide for nurturing their gifted children. Austin, TX: Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented.
Schechter, N. L., Reis, S. M., & Colson, E. R. (1999). The gifted child. In M. D. Levine, W. B. Carey, & A. C. Crocker (Eds.), Developmental behavioral pediatrics (3rd ed., pp. 653-662). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163-173). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Şenol, C. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of gifted children’s education programs: The example of BILSEM [Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (BİLSEM Örneği]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.
Serin, O., Bulut Serin, N., & Saygılı, G. (2010). Developing a problem solving inventory for primary school-level children [İlköğretim Düzeyindeki Çocuklar İçin Problem Çözme Envanteri’nin (ÇPÇE) Geliştirilmesi]. Online Primary Education, 9, 446-458.
Shechtman, Z., & Silektor, A. (2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34, 63-72. http://doi.org/fxtw3j
Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1997). Mental speed is not the ‘basic’ process of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 69-84. http://doi.org/ccwk4m
Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 13, 569-586. http://doi.org/fqt3wp
Webb, J. T. (2002). Existential depression in gifted individuals. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2004). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Winstanley, C. (2004). Too clever by half: A fair deal for gifted children. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Yoon, C.-H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203-216. http://doi.org/bctfxm
Yürük, A. (2003). A comparison of self-esteem in primary school-age normal-level and gifted students. Unpublished master’s thesis, HU Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Zhang, L.-F., & Postiglione, G. A. (2001). Thinking styles, self-esteem and socio-economic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1333-1346. http://doi.org/brmrpf
Table 1. Demographic Statistics of the Sample
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha Values of Scale Factors
Table 3. Sample Compliance with Normal Distribution
Note. The sample complies with the normal distribution (p > .05).
Table 4. Comparison of Problem-Solving Scale Results According to Gender
Table 5. Comparison of Problem-Solving Scale Results According to Whether or Not Participants are Gifted
Table 6. Comparison of Problem-Solving Scale Results According to Grade
Table 8. Scheffé Test Results as Grade Levels