European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.292953
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GIFTED AND UNGIFTED
STUDENTS’ SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND THEIR PARENTS’
PARENTING STYLES: A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL
Bilge Bakır Ayğari, Mehmet Gündoğdu
Educational Sciences Guidance and Psychological Counseling Department,
Faculty of Educatıon, Mersin University, Turkey
Abstract:
The aim of this study is to reveal the influence of parental child rearing methods on selfperceptions of gifted and ungifted students with structural equation modeling. To
achieve this purpose, the study has been carried out in ‛İLSEM in Mersin city and in
multiple elementary state schools. As a descriptive method, causal-comparative method
has been used in this study. Accordingly, Demographic Information Questionnaire,
Offer Self-image Questionnaire, Parenting Style Inventory have been applied to
students. In statistical analysis, Mann Whitney U Test, The Kruskal Wallis H Tests, ChiSquare Test and Path Analysis Techniques have been used. As a result of the study, it is
found out that self-perceptions of gifted students are higher than self-perceptions of
ungifted students. In SEM (Structural Equation Modeling), parental child rearing
methods related to gifted and ungifted students explain the students self-perceptions at
a statistically significant level.
Keywords: intelligence, gifted, child rearing methods, self-perception, structural
equation
1. Problem Situation
Intelligence is one of important topics which is discussed in detail in area of
psychology. Although so many studies have been conducted on the concept of
intelligence since 19th Century, a certain specific, unanimously agreed upon definition
of intelligence has not been determined yet. Therefore, there are lots of different
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
334
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
definitions for intelligence. Gardner (1993) define intelligence as the capacity of an
individual to create a valuable product in one or more cultures and the ability to find
out new problems to be solved. Wechsler (1981), on the other hand, define intelligence
as a general capacity of an individual in terms of displaying purpose-oriented actions as
a whole, logical thinking and affecting his/her environment (as cited in Özgüven, 2011).
As there is not a common definition for the concept of intelligence, there emerges no
certain definitions for concepts of high intelligence and giftedness. Definition of
giftedness in Marland Report
has been accepted as a source by many countries
and has provided different viewpoints about gifted people. According to this definition,
A gifted child is a child who is detected by individuals who are regarded as professionals in this
area that he/she is be able to carry out a high level task thanks to his/her outstanding abilities”
(Marland, 1972).
Self-perception concept which is one of the components of personality, like
intelligence, is defined as the way in which an individual observes and perceives
oneself and it is discussed in a developmental process. C(celoğlu
states that self-
perception concept as a component of personality is the features others reflect on him,
observations about the self and a collection of all characteristics which distinguish an
individual from others in accordance with information he/she gets from environment.
In another definition, self-perception is a total concept consisting of experiences of an
individual throughout the life, environmental factors, factors affecting personality and
resulting in positive and negative attitudes toward oneself (Demoulin, 1999). This
concept which is stated together with self-respect and self-esteem terms can be
considered as a concept described together with a feeling of self-worth and selfacceptance or a larger concept that includes these concepts (Kuzgun, 2000). Self-concept
contains physical and psychological features. Physical self that is related to an
individual s physical appearance emerges before spiritual self. ‚fter then, spiritual self
emerges, which is constructed with the opinions, feelings and perceptions. As an
individual grows, both images about self come together and the person perceives the
self as a whole ‛ee,
cited in Uyanık,
. When the concept of self is analyzed
in gifted children, their difference from ungifted children appears as remarkable .
Some researchers assert that self-respect of gifted and talented children grows earlier
(Karagöllü, 1995). This situation stimulates them to be aware of their difference from
other children.
Parenting style and self-representations have a lifelong connection with parentchild relationship and they have effects on child s self-perception Kağıtçıbaşı,
. In
accordance with these effects, it is considered that there is a relationship between
parenting styles and children s self-perceptions. It is supposed that parenting styles
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
335
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
adopted by parents affect children s self-perceptions. There are a lot of classifications
related to parenting styles however, Maccoby and Martin s four parenting typologies
with two dimensions (1983) are commonly accepted as a proper classification among
them (Gracia and Garcia, 2009).
Authoritative parenting;
Permissive/ Indulgent Parenting;
Democratic Parenting;
Permissive/ Neglectful Parenting.
When this classification is analyzed, it is seen that on one hand, authoritarian
parents display demanding and controlling behaviors upon their children; on the other
hand, they behave in a rejecting, neglecting and indifferent way.
Democratic parents display high level behaviors in both dimensions; they are
both demanding & controlling and sensitive & permissive (Gracia and Garcia, 2009).
Permissive/Indulgent parents have sensitiveness/acceptance, interest at a high level and
they have control/demands at a low level. On the other hand, permissive/indulgent
parents display low level features in both dimensions.
Self-improvement and formation of self-perception in children begin in family
environment. Family environment is the most important place for self- improvement of
children. This study aims to show the effect of parenting styles of gifted and ungifted
students parents on students self-perceptions. Moreover, this study focuses on
identifying at which level students
self-perceptions differentiate depending on
giftedness and gender; and at which level parenting styles differentiate depending on
various variables (education level, giftedness of their children).
1. Do the parenting styles of gifted and ungifted students parents affect students
self-perceptions?
2. Do the parenting styles differentiate depending on giftedness of students?
3. Do the self-perceptions of students differentiate depending on being gifted or
ungifted?
2. Method
2.1 Research Model
The purpose of science is to identify, examine and estimate (Greenberg, 1986).
Descriptive methods, on the other hand, play an important role in describing features of
a specific phenomenon (Heppner, Wampold and Kivlighan, 2013). In this study, a
descriptive method, casual-comparative method has been used. In this method, it is
attempted to examine whether there is a difference between two or more groups and
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
336
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
whether there is a relationship between variables. Causal approach is an effective
method in achieving research aims related to describing and estimating (Christensen,
Johnson and Turner,
‛alcı,
. Structural Equation Modelling SEM commonly
used in recent years is especially used in evaluation of relationship between variables,
in improvement and testing of the theoretical models Çelik and Yılmaz,
. In the
study, it is attempted to test a model with SEM in which parenting styles displayed by
gifted and ungifted students parents affect self-perceptions of students.
2.2 Population Sample
Population in this study consists of students studying in elementary state schools and in
‛İLSEM
which works under the administration of Mersin National Education
Directorate) in 2014-2015 education year. Study sample consists of 415 students at total
and subgroups include 5th and 6th grade students studying part time in ‛İLSEM and
students studying in Aliye Pozcu Elementary School, Mezitli Belediyesi Elementary
School, Çankaya Elementary School, Namık Kemal Elementary School. Students have
been chosen with random sampling by selecting two classes from each branch in
schools. There are 223 male (53,7) and 192 female students (%46,3) in the study. 122
students have been identified to be gifted (%29,4); however, 293 students have not been
identified with any diagnosis (%70,6). 203 students are studying in 5th grade (%48,9),
and 212 students are studying in 6th grade (%51,1).
Table 1: Findings related to demographic information of the students
Variable
N
%
Gender
Female
192
46,3
Giftedness
Male
Gifted
Ungifted
223
122
293
53,7
29,4
70,6
Class
5th grade
203
48,9
6th grade
212
51,1
2.3 Data Collection Tools
In this research, data collection tools are Offer Self Image Questionnaire (short form),
Parenting Styles Inventory and Demographic Information Questionnaire that has been
developed by the researcher.
A. Offer Self Image Questionnaire (short form): This scale developed by Offer, Ostrov,
Howard and ‚tkinson
and adapted into Turkish by Şahin
consists of
questions and 11 sub-scales. In the adaptation process, it is stated that the scale consists
of ten sub-scales; however, there is found no internal consistency for one sub-scale
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
337
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
(personal values). Similarly, high scores in Offer Self Image Questionnaire mean an
increase in self-image in a negative way
Savaşır and Şahin,
. When the
relationship between short and long forms of Offer Self-Image Questionnaire (OSIQ) is
reviewed, reliability coefficient of OSIQ-50 is found as .90. Total score correlation
between two forms of the scale (99 items and 50 items) has been found as r = .94. the
reliability coefficient measured by test-retest method has been found as 0.74 for
elementary school students and .
for high school students Savaşır and Şahin
.
B. Parenting Styles Inventory: It was developed by Sümer and Güngör (1999) taking
Steinberg and his friends study
as example, based on dimensions and
classification methods supposed by Maccoby and Martin (1983). The scale consists of
two dimensions as acceptance/involvement and tight discipline/control. While the scale
included 30 items when it was first developed, it decreased to 22 items in the following
form S(mer,
and
. There are
items in the dimension of acceptance/involvement
items in the dimension of tight discipline/control . Even numbers in the scale
represent the dimension of acceptance/involvement, odd numbers represent the
dimension of tight discipline/control; also 11th, 13th and 21st items are graded reversely.
Items in the scale are graded with five point Likert scale as absolutely not right
point , not right
right
points , partially right
points ,
right
points , and very
points .
Four basic parenting styles emerge as a result of intersection of the sub-
dimensions of acceptance/ involvement and tight discipline/control. These parenting
styles are
explanatory/authoritative style in which acceptance/involvement and tight
disciple/control dimensions are at high level
permissive/indulgent style in which
acceptance/involvement dimension is high but tight discipline/control is at low level;
authoritative
style
in
which
acceptance/involvement
discipline/control is at high level and
is
low
permissive/neglectful style
but
high
in which
acceptance/involvement and tight discipline/control dimensions are at low level.
Parenting Styles Inventory scale (PSI) has been respectively filled for mothers and
fathers. According to the study of Sümer (1999), alpha reliability coefficients of both
dimensions show up that acceptance/involvement dimension perceived from both
parents is found as .94, tight discipline/control dimension perceived from the mother is
found as .80, tight discipline/control dimension perceived from the father is found as .70
(Sümer, 1999).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
338
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
2.4 Implementation and Analysis of Data
Necessary permissions have been asked from Mersin National Education Directorate
for questionnaires and scales applied within the study and data collection tools have
been applied to the students approximately for an hour.
LISREL packet program and SPSS 20.0 packet program have been used in
statistical analysis of the data. In order to see distributions related to self-perceptions of
gifted and ungifted students and their parents parenting styles, the following measures
have been used: central tendency, deviation from mean and deviation from normality.
Independent sample t-test has been used to reveal whether self-perceptions of the
students differ depending on gender, class and giftedness. SEM, Path Analysis has been
conducted in order to identify theoretical relationship between self-perceptions of the
students and parenting styles- a theoretically accepted relationship-. Independent
theoretical model related to the relationship between self-perceptions of the students
and their parents parenting styles has been tested in this stage.
3. Findings
Path Analysis has been conducted for the sub-problem Are the self-perceptions of the
students affected by parenting styles?”. The results are given in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
T-test findings related to relationship
Findings related to relationship
between self-perceptions of
gifted and ungifted students
and their parents parenting
styles
between self-perceptions of the gifted
and ungifted students and
their
parents parenting styles
Figure 1
Figure 2
x²=12497,78 sd=4274 p=0,00000 RMSEA=0,068
x²=12497,78 sd=4274 p=0,00000 RMSEA=0,068
Standardized values related to the model are given in Figure 1. As seen in Figure 2, it
appears that x²=12497,78 and sd=4274. When these values are proportioned to each
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
339
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
other, x²/sd has been found as 2,92. When the model is evaluated by considering x²/sd
(x²/sd =12497,78/4274=2,92), it can be stated that fit is perfect according to this result. For
this model, RMSEA value is found as 0,068 and the other fit values emerge as NFI=0,81,
NNFI=0,88, RMR=0,18, CFI=0,88, GFI=0,61 and AGFI=0,59. When path analysis in table
is analyzed in terms of structural model, it can be expressed that path coefficients at
moderate level are obtained for parenting styles in explanation of self-perception. In the
model, it is seen that parenting styles of both mothers and fathers explain selfperception. In other words, it is possible to interpret that parenting styles adopted by
their parents predict students self-perceptions in a negative way. While parenting
styles of mothers explain students self-perceptions at -0,24 level, parenting styles of
fathers explain students self-perceptions at -0,35 level. As a result of analysis, t values
are found significant in measurement model and structural model and it appears that
x²=12497,78 and sd=4274. When these values are proportioned to each other, x²/sd ratio
has been found as 2,92. When the model is evaluated considering x²/sd (x²/sd
=12497,78/4274=2,92), it can be expressed that fit is perfect according to this result.
Model, x²/sd (x²/sd =12497,78/4274=2,92). When t-values are analyzed for this model, it
is seen that t-values are significant at 0,01 level because parameter values exceed 2,56. It
is possible to acknowledge that the model which is built in accordance with theoretical
structure and fit indices has been confirmed.
After this model is tested, Kruskal Wallis H test has been applied in order to
identify whether there is a differentiation between self-perceptions and four styles
which have been obtained by crossing sub-dimensions of parenting styles inventory
scale. The findings related to self-perceptions of gifted & ungifted students and their
parents parenting styles are given in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 2: Kruskal Wallis H Test Findings Related to Gifted and Ungifted Students
Students
Students
Ungifted
Gifted
Self-Perceptions and Their Mothers Parenting Styles
Group
N
Mean Ranks
Sd
x²
p
Permissive/Neglectful
19
86,03
3
31,247
0,000
Permissive/Indulgent
61
45,03
Authoritative
24
82,38
Explanatory/Authoritative
17
60,15
Group
N
Mean Ranks
Sd
x²
p
Permissive/Neglectful
40
160,53
3
32,657
0,000
Permissive/Indulgent
73
113,18
Authoritative
80
185,60
Explanatory/Authoritative
98
132,19
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
340
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant differentiation in selfperception total scores of gifted students depending on their mothers parenting styles
{x² (sd=3, N=121)=31,247, p<0,05}. According to this finding, it can be considered that
parenting styles of mothers affect students self-perceptions. When mean ranks of
groups are examined, it is seen that children of permissive/neglectful mothers have the
lowest self-perception and it is followed by children whose mothers adopt authoritative
style. It is possible to express that the highest self-perceptions belong to children whose
mothers adopt permissive/indulgent style. ‚nnelerin çocuk yetiştirme stillerine göre
(st(n zekalı olmayan öğrencilerin de benlik algıları toplam puanlarında anlamlı bir
farklılaşma gör(lmektedir x² sd= , N=
= ,
, p< ,05}. Also, it appears that there
is a significant differentiation in self-perception total scores of ungifted students
depending on their mothers parenting styles
x²
sd= , N=
=
,
, p< ,
}.
According to this finding, it is possible to express that mothers parenting styles affect
children s self-perceptions. When mean ranks of groups are examined, it is seen that the
lowest self-perceptions belong to children whose mothers adopt authoritative styles
and it is followed by children who have permissive/neglectful mothers; on the other
hand, the highest self-perceptions belong to children whose mothers adopt
permissive/indulgent style.
Table 3: Kruskal Wallis H Test Findings Related to Self-Perceptions of Gifted and Ungifted
Students
Students
Ungifted
Gifted
Students and Parenting Styles of Their Fathers
Group
N
Mean Rank
Sd
x²
p
Permissive/Neglectful
25
79,98
3
30,609
0,000
Permissive/Indulgent
56
45,29
Authoritative
20
87,50
Explanatory/Authoritative
20
54,75
Group
N
Mean Rank
Sd
x²
p
Permissive/Neglectful
49
157,65
3
47,377
0,000
Permissive/Indulgent
68
103,16
Authoritative
71
197,38
103
133,32
Explanatory/Authoritative
When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant differentiation in selfperception total scores of gifted students depending on parenting styles of their fathers
{x² (sd=3, N=121)=30,609, p<0,05}. According to this finding, it can be expressed that
parenting styles of fathers affect students self-perceptions. When mean ranks of groups
are analyzed, it appears that the lowest self-perceptions belong to children whose
fathers adopt authoritative style and it is followed by children who have
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
341
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
permissive/neglectful fathers; on the other hand, the highest self-perceptions belong to
children whose fathers adopt permissive/indulgent parenting style. There is a
statistically significant differentiation in self-perception total scores of ungifted students
depending on parenting styles of their fathers {x² (sd=3, N=291)=47,377, p<0,05}.
According to this finding, it is possible to think that parenting styles of fathers affect
students self-perceptions. When mean ranks of groups are analyzed, it is seen that the
lowest self-perception belong to children whose fathers adopt authoritative parenting
style and it is followed by children who have permissive/neglectful fathers; on the other
hand,
the
highest
self-perceptions
belong
to
children whose
father
adopt
permissive/indulgent parenting styles.
Descriptive statistical results related to self-perceptions of gifted and ungifted
students are given in Table 4.
Table 4: Descriptive Statistical Results Related to Self-perceptions of Gifted and
Ungifted students
Self-perception
S
Kurtosis
Skewness
Min-Max
Xmod
Family relations
̅
22,2193
8,78446
1,045
,725
12,00-55,00
12
Impulse Control
20,2217
8,06070
,658
-,052
8,00-48,00
13
Sexual Attitudes
4,6392
2,43819
,740
,006
2,00-12,00
2
Coping Strength
4,9446
2,90332
,714
-,463
2,00-12,00
2
Body Image
9,7229
5,04883
,741
-,174
4,00-24,00
4
20,2217
8,06070
,658
-,052
8,00-48,00
13
5,0843
2,78975
,697
-,250
2,00-12,00
2
1,8120
1,39299
1,702
1,818
1,00-6,00
1
Social Relations
15,7614
6,59149
,858
,400
7,00-40,00
12
Mental Health
22,3333
8,42629
,379
-,435
8,00-48,00
18
116,5049
38,46593
,585
-,204
51,00-240,00
92
Emotional level
Adaptation to
Environment
Occupational and
Educational Goals
Total
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
342
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
Table 4 shows the means related to self-perception total scores and sub-scale scores,
minimum and maximum scores, kurtosis and skewness coefficients and standard
deviations. It is seen that the lowest total score in scale is 51 and the highest score is 240.
The lowest score obtained in family relations sub-scale is 12 and the highest score is 55.
The lowest score in impulse control sub-scale is 8 and the highest score is 48. The lowest
score in sexual attitudes sub-scale, adaptation to environment sub-scale and coping
strength sub-scale is 2 and the highest score in these sub-scales is 12. The lowest score in
body image sub-scale is 4 and the highest score is 24. The lowest score in the emotional
level sub-scale is 8 and the highest score is 48. The lowest score in occupation and
education aims sub-scale is 1 and the highest score is 6. The lowest score in social
relations sub-scale is
and the highest score is
. The lowest score in mental health
sub-scale is 8 and the highest score is 48. Lastly, when it comes to total scores obtained
in Offer Self Image Questionnaire, the lowest score appeared as 51 and the highest score
as 240.
Kolmogrov-Smirnov test has been conducted in order to identify whether selfperception and its sub-scales have a normal distribution or not. According to normality
test results, it appeared that total scores related to the variable of students selfperceptions do not have a normal distribution (p<0,05). When the sub-scales are
examined, it has been identified that they also do not have a normal distribution
(p<0,05). In this case, Mann Whitney U test has been conducted in order to identify
whether there is a statistically significant differentiation between self-perceptions of
gifted and ungifted students.
For the sub-problem Do the self-perceptions of the students differ depending on being
gifted or ungifted? , Table-5 displays the results of Mann Whitney U test which has been
conducted in order to identify whether there is a significant differentiation in selfperceptions of students depending on being gifted or ungifted.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
343
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
Table 5: Mann Whitney U Test Results Related to Self-Perceptions of
Gifted and Ungifted Students
Variable
Group
N
Mean
Rank
Ranks
Sum
Family
Gifted Students
122
188,34
22978,00
Relations
Ungifted Students
293
216,18
63342,00
Impulse
Gifted Students
122
174,29
21263,50
Control
Ungifted Students
293
222,04
65056,50
Sexual
Gifted Students
122
217,26
26289,00
Attitudes
Ungifted Students
293
202,75
59202,00
Coping
Gifted Students
122
181,59
22154,50
Strength
Ungifted Students
293
218,99
64165,50
Body
Gifted Students
122
192,26
23455,50
Image
Ungifted Students
293
214,55
62864,50
Emotional
Gifted Students
122
174,29
21263,50
Level
Ungifted Students
293
222,04
65056,50
Adaptation
Gifted Students
122
184,21
22474,00
to
Ungifted Students
293
217,90
63846,00
122
231,20
28206,00
293
198,34
58114,00
Environment
Occupational
Gifted Students
and
Ungifted Students
Educational
U
z
p
15475,000
-2,157
,031
13760,500
-3,698
,000
16424,000
-1,146
,252
14651,500
-2,952
,003
15952,500
-1,735
,083
13760,500
-3,698
,000
14971,000
-2,644
,008
15043,000
-3,031
,002
15090,500
-2,504
,012
12722,500
-4,589
,000
13473,500
-3,754
0,000
Goals
Social
Gifted Students
122
185,19
22593,50
Relations
Ungifted Students
293
217,50
63726,50
Mental
Gifted Students
122
165,78
20225,50
Health
Ungifted Students
293
224,93
65679,50
Total
Gifted Students
121
173,35
20854,50
Ungifted Students
291
220,70
64223,50
When Table-5 is examined, it appears that there is found a statistically significant
difference between self-perceptions of gifted and ungifted students (U= 13473,500,
p<0,05). When mean ranks and rank-sum related to self-perception total scores are
analyzed, it is seen that self-perceptions of ungifted students are lower than selfperceptions of gifted students. When sub-scales in Table-19 are examined, there is
found no significant difference between Sexual Attitudes and Body Image Sub-scales
(Usexual Attitudes =16424,000, p>0,05; UBody Image=14651,500, p>0,05). However, there is found a
statistically significant difference depending on being gifted or ungifted among the
following sub-scales: Family Relations, Impulse Control, Coping Strength, Emotional
Level, Adaptation to Environment, Occupational and Educational Goals, Social
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
344
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
Relations and Mental Health Sub-scales (UFamily
=13760,500, p<0,05; U
Control
Coping Strength
=15475,000, p<0,05; UlImpulse
Relations
=14651,500, p<0,05; U
=13760,500, p<0,05;
Emotional Level
UAdaptation to Environment =14971,000, p<0,05; U Occupational and Educational Goals=15043,000, p<0,05; Usocial
=15090,500, p<0,05; UMental Health=12722,500, p<0,05). When mean ranks and rank-sum
Relations
are examined related to scores in sub-scales of Family Relations, Impulse Control,
Coping Strength, Emotional Level, Adaptation to Environment, Occupational and
Educational Goals, Social Relations and Mental Health, it is seen that gifted students
have higher self- perceptions in all these sub-scales compared to ungifted students selfperceptions. It has been identified that ungifted students have lower self-perceptions in
total and sub-scale scores compared to gifted students.
4. Discussion and Results
As a result of the study, it can be expressed that parenting styles adopted by parents are
generally related to self-perceptions of students. It has been observed that gifted
students with high self-perceptions have mothers who adopt permissive/indulgent
parenting style and students who have low self-perceptions have mothers who adopt
permissive/neglectful parenting style. It has been evident that gifted students with high
self-perceptions have both mothers and fathers who adopt permissive/indulgent
parenting style. However, it has come out that while students with low self-perceptions
have mothers who adopt permissive/neglectful parenting style, their fathers adopt
authoritative parenting style. It is found out that self-perceptions of gifted students are
higher than ungifted students. Most of the mothers and fathers who graduated from a
university adopt permissive/indulgent parenting style.
When literature regarding to these results are reviewed, in study of Sümer and
Güngör (1999), it was established that self-esteems of university students significantly
differ depending on parenting styles. There exist some studies in literature which
indicate that the perception of parents as explanatory/authoritative is related to the
increase in self-respect (Aunola, Stattin and Nurmi, 2000; Herz and Gullone, 1999). In
another study, high self-esteem is related to democratic parenting style perceived from
both mother and father (Milevsky et al., 2007). The study of Weiten and Lloyd (2006)
partially supports this finding, as well. As a result of their study, they emphasized that
children grown in a democratic and permissive/indulgent parental environment have
higher self-esteems compared to others.
There are several studies in literature which come up different findings about
this research topic. Some studies reveal that gifted students self-perceptions are
relatively more positive than normal children (Karnes and Wherry,1981; Pyryt and
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
345
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
Mendaglio, 1994). Hoge and Renzulli (1993) analyzed the findings of fifteen studies
which comparatively examine self-perceptions of gifted students and they found out
that gifted students have generally slightly more positive self-perceptions compared to
normal students. The findings obtained from fifteen studies about the concept of selfhave been analyzed by coding them under five categories (general, academic, behavior,
physical, social). As a result, they confirmed that gifted students have more positive
perceptions in terms of academic and behavioral self-compared to normal group
Coleman and Fults,
‚ltun and Yazıcı,
. In his study with
th
, 7th and 8th grade
normal and gifted students, Yürük (2003) concluded that gifted male students have
more positive self-perceptions than their peers and gifted female students. Similarly,
McCoach et al. (2002) found out that gifted students perceive themselves more
successful academically than their peers with normal development.
However, some studies come up with the contrary findings which indicate that
there is no statistically significant difference in terms of self-concept between gifted
students and normal students (Loeb and Jay, 1987; Cornell, 1983). Likewise, Burak
(1995) conducted a comparative study with gifted and normal students and his study
revealed that there is found no significant difference in positiveness levels of students
related to their concept of self. Also, Bartel and Reynold (1986) made a research with
gifted and ungifted 4th and 5th grade students (n=145) about their self-perceptions and
depression tendency and they concluded that there is no significant difference between
gifted and ungifted students.
Considering the role of parents attitudes and their education in development of
children, it can be advised that couples should undergo parental education before they
become parent. Considering that gifted students have a potential of great achievements,
it is beneficial to inform parents about the needs, developments and academic success
of their gifted children and help them to adopt a supportive attitude. Schools should
organize trainings for parents about self-development of their children. There should be
created promotive and supporting environments for gifted individuals in order to
succeed their self-actualization. There should be available professional support for
teachers in terms of learning activities to support development of gifted students. In the
following studies, parental education programs should be developed and efficient
studies should be conducted which would support and promote students self-esteem
and self-confidence.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
346
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
References
1. ‚ltun, F. ve Yazıcı, H.
. Üst(n Yetenekli 5ğrencilerin ‛enlik Kavramları ve
Akademik Öz-Yeterlik İnançları Karşılaştırmalı ‛ir Çalışma. Gifted Students
Self-Concepts and Their Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs: A Comparative Study]
Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, s. 319
334.
2. Aunola, K., Stattin, H. ve Nunni, J. (2000). Parenting Style and Adolescents'
Achievement Strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, p. 205-222.
3. ‛alcı, ‚.
. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma, [Research in Social Sciences] Ankara:
Pegem Akademi.
4. Bartel, N. P. ve Reynolds, W. M. (1986). Depression and Self-Esteem in
Academically Gifted and Nongifted Children: A Comparison Study. Journal of
School Psychology, 24, p. 55-61.
5. Burak, E. M. (1995). Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Benlik Kavramlarına İlişkin Bir
Araştırma. ‚ Study on Gifted Students Self-Concepts Yayınlanmamış y(ksek
lisans tezi, A.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
6. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R.B., Turner, L.A. (2015). Araştırma Yöntemleri Desen
ve Analiz. [Research Method Designs and Analysis](Çev.Ed. A. Aypay) Ankara:
‚nı Yayıncılık.
7. Coleman, J. M., & Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The
role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol 26(3), p. 116-120.
8. Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted Children. The Impact of Positive Labelling on the
Family System. American Journal of Ortopsychiatry, 53, p. 322-335.
9. C(celoğlu D. (2000). İnsan ve Davranışı, Human and His ‛ehavior İstanbul
Remzi Kitabevi.
10. Çelik, H.E. ve Yılmaz, V. (2013). Lisrel 9.1 ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi
Temel Kavramlar, Uygulamalar, Programlama. [Basic Concepts, Practices and
Programming in Structural Equation Modelling with Lisrel 9.1
‚nkara ‚nı
Yayıncılık.
11. Demoulin, D.F. (1999). A Personalized Development of Self-Concept for
Beginning Readers. Education, 120(1).
12. Garcia, F. ve Gracia E. (2009). Is Always Authoritative the Optimum Parenting
Style? Evidence from Spanish Families. Adolescence, 44(173), p. 101-131
13. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.
14. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance
Evaluations. Journal of Avolied Psychology. 2(71), p. 340-342.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
347
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
15. Heppner PP, Wampold BE, Kivlighan DM. (2013). Jr. Research design in
counseling. 3rd ed. Brooks/Cole; Belmont, CA.
16. Herz, L. ve Gullone, E. (1999). The Relationship Between Self-Esteem and
Parenting Style: A Cross-cultural Comparison of Australian and Vietnamese
Australian Adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(6), p. 742-761.
17. Hoge, R.D. and Renzulli, J.S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and
self-concept. Review of Educational Research. 63: 449-465.
. Benlik, Aile ve İnsan Gelişimi. [Self-concept, Family and
18. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç.
Human Development
. ‛asım . İstanbul Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
19. Karnes. F.A. ve Wherry, J.N. (1981). Self-concepts of gifted students as measured
by the Piers- Harris Children s Self-Concept Scale, Psychological Reports, 49(3), p.
9-14.
20. Kuzgun, Y.
.
Meslek Danışmanlığı, Vocational Counselling ‚nkara
Nobel Yayıncılık.
21. Loeb, R. C. & Jay, G. (1987). Self Concept in the Gifted Children: Differential
Impact in Boys and Girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, p. 4 9.
22. Maccoby, E. E. ve Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the Context of the Family:
Parent-Child Interaction, P.H.Mussen, ve E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology, Cil IV Socialization, Personality and Social Development, New
York, Wiley, p. 1-101.
23. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the Gifted and Talented: Report to the Congress of
the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
24. Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S. ve Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and
Paternal Parenting Style in Adolescents: Associations with Self Esteem,
Depression, and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, p. 39-47.
25. 5zg(ven, İ.E.
. Psikolojik Testler. [Psychological Tests] Ankara: Pdrem
Yayınları.
26. Pyryt, M.C. ve Mendaglio, S. (1994). The multidimensional Self-concept: A
Comparison of Gifted and Average-Ability Adolescents, Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 17(3), p. 299-305.
27. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented
students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10(2), 113-125.
28. Savaşır I. Ve Şahin, N.H.
. Bilişsel-davranışçı terapilerde değerlendirme: Sık
kullanılan ölçekler. [ Evaluation in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies: Frequently Used
Scales ]‚nkara T(rk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
348
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
29. S(mer, N.
. Yapısal eşitlik modelleri
Temel kavramlar ve örnek
uygulamalar.[Structural Equation Models: Basic Concepts and Sample Practices]
Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-74.
30. S(mer, N. ve G(ngör D.
. Çocuk Yetiştirme Stillerinin ‛ağlanma Stilleri,
‛enlik Değerlendirmeleri ve Yakın İlişkiler Üzerindeki Etkisi. The Effect of
Parenting Styles on Attachment Styles, Self Evaluations and Intimate
Relationships ] Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14(44), s. 35-58.
31. Şahin, N.
. Offer Benlik İmgesi Ölçeği El Kitabı. [Offer Self- Image Scale
Handbook]
32. Uyanık,
. Üst(n Yetenekli Çocuklarda M(kemmeliyetçilik, Yalnızlık ve
Kendine Saygı D(zeyinin Sınav Kaygısı Üzerindeki Etkileri, [The Effect of Gifted
Students Level of Perfectionism, Loneliness and Self-Esteem on Exam Anxiety]
Yayımlanmış Y(ksek Lisans Tezi, ‛ursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal ‛ilimler
Enstitüsü.
33. Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Revised.
New York: Psychological Corporation.
34. Weiten, W. ve Lloyd, M.A. (2006). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in
the 21st Century, USA: Belmont CA.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
349
Bilge ‛akır ‚yğar, Mehmet G(ndoğdu
THE REL‚TIONSHIP ‛ETWEEN GIFTED ‚ND UNGIFTED STUDENTS SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND
THEIR P‚RENTS P‚RENTING STYLES ‚ STRUCTUR‚L EQU‚TION MODEL
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
350