Giftedness as a Possible Risk of Bullying

Open access

Abstract

Introduction: The paper deals with a possible level of risk in cerebrally gifted pupils in relation to bullying at lower secondary schools and grammar schools. In terms of personality characteristics, gifted pupils form a very diverse group, but some research suggests that they might be a risky group concerning school bullying. In the Czech Republic, the most of cerebrally gifted pupils attend ordinary primary schools or grammar schools and they are in daily contact with other pupils. Due to ambiguous research results, there is a question if it is really possible to think of certain risks in the case of cerebrally gifted pupils in relation to their school environment. Quantitative research tried to answer these questions.

Methods: The research was focused on the perception of selected areas in the class social environment by the diagnosed cerebrally gifted pupils, the undiagnosed gifted ones and the ordinary pupil population. A quantitative research strategy for bullying incidence mapping in primary and grammar schools were determined. As a research tool, a questionnaire was chosen. Gathered data from the initial questionnaire were evaluated by the following methods: dispersion analysis (ANOVA) for data spread by Gauss curve, Kruskal-Wallis test for data with non-Gauss distribution, arithmetic mean, Pearson Chi-Square Test, correlation analysis and contingency tables.

Results: There are differences among the class climate in ordinary classes and the classes with diagnosed cerebrally gifted pupils and undiagnosed pupils. The comparison was at the level of schools, it means among primary schools and grammar schools. It was found out that the cerebrally gifted respondents repeatedly met some form of bullying.

Discussion: On the basis of the findings, the authors assumed that cerebrally gifted pupils (GP) represent a risky group in social interaction with their peers and are more prone to different symptoms of bullying. This has not been statistically confirmed. The overall score was similar in other groups.

Limitation: The views of teachers and the views of some psychologists suggest that within the GP group, there is a special group of GP that is not identifiable by traditional questionnaires. For further research, it is worthwhile to consider opting for such research methods that could reveal those pupils.

Conclusions: Based on these results, it is possible to support those authors who consider GP as a specific group with their own problems, different values and perceptions, but similar to their peers.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ablard K. E. (1997). Parents' conceptions of academic success: Internal and external standards. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 8(2) 57-64.

  • Austin A. B. & Draper D. C. (1981). Peer relationships of the academically gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly 25 129-133.

  • Bain S. K. (2004). Social self-concept social-attributions and peer relationships in fourth fifth and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly 48(1) 162-167.

  • Batten M. G.-B. (1981). Perceptions of the Quality of School Life: A Case Study of Schools and Students. Sydney: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Binkey M. Rust K. & Williams T. (1996). Reading literacy in a international perspective. Washington D. C.: Department of Education/National Center for Education Statistics.

  • Blatný M. (2001). Osobnostní determinanty sebehodnocení a životní spokojenosti. Československá psychologie 45(5) 385-392.

  • Bracken B. A. & Lamprecht S. (2003). Self-concept: An equal opportunity construct. School Psychology Quarterly 18 103-121.

  • Coleman L. J. (2000). Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness. In K. A. Heller International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 203-212). New York: Elsevier.

  • Cornell D. G. (1990). Self-concept and peer status among gifted program youth. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(3) 456-463.

  • Dočkal V. (2005). Zaměřeno na talenty aneb nadání má každý. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.

  • Eaton D. K. (2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries 61(4) 1-162.

  • Fořtík V. F. & Fořtíková J. (2007). Nadané dítě a rozvoj jeho schopností. Praha: Portál.

  • Freeman J. (1979). Gifted Children: Their Identification. Lancaster: MTP Press.

  • Geršicová Z. (2016). Class teachers – Their thinking and reasoning in the context of creating a favourable classroom social climate by means of the methods of personal and social education. Acta Technologica Dubnicae6(1) 27-41. doi: 10.1515/atd-2016-0004

  • Geršicová Z. & Barnová S. (2018). Personal and social training as a part of class teachers’ lifelong learning. Acta Educationis Generalis 8(2) 24-39. doi: 10.2478/atd-2018-0009

  • Gross J. J. Emotional suppression: Physiology self-report and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(6) 970-986.

  • Gust-Brey K. C. & Cross T. (1999). An examination of the literature base on the suicidal behaviors of gifted students. Roeper Review 22(1) 28-35.

  • Hamachek D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior 27-33.

  • Harter S. (1985). The Self-Perception Profile for Children: Revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Denver: University of Denver.

  • Harter S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issues involving self-concept. In B. A. Bracken Handbook of self-concept: Developmental social and clinical considerations (1-37). Oxford: John Wiley.

  • Harter S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Havlínová M. K. (2001). Sociální klima v prostředí základních škol ČR. Praha: MŠMT ČR.

  • Hendl J. (2006). Přehled statistických metod zpracování dat: analýza a metaanalýza dat. Praha: Portál.

  • Hoge R. D. & Renzulli J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational research 63 449-465.

  • Hollingworth L. S. (1942). Purchase children above 180 IQ. Teachers College Record 44(1) 56-56.

  • Hoover J. H. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International 13 516.

  • Hříbková L. (2005). Nadání a nadaní: pedagogicko-psychologické přístupy modely výzkumy a jejich vztah ke školské praxi. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.

  • Hříbková L. (2007). Základní témata problematiky nadaných. Praha: Univerzita Jana Amose Komenského.

  • Janos P. M. Fung H. C. & Robinson N. M. (1985). Self-concept self-esteem and peer relations among gifted children who feel "different". Gifted Child Quarterly 29(2) 78-82.

  • Jurášková J. (2006). Základy pedagogiky nadaných. Praha: IPPP ČR.

  • Kolář M. (1990). Bolest šikanování. Praha: Portál.

  • Kolář M. (1997). Skrytý svět šikanování ve školách. Praha: Portál.

  • Kolář M. (2000). Kniha o bolesti šikanování. Praha: Portál.

  • Kolář M. (2001). Bolest šikanování: cesta k zastavení epidemie šikanování ve školách. Praha: Portál.

  • Konečná V. (2010). Sebepojetí a sebehodnocení rozumově nadaných dětí. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

  • Kraus B. V. (2003). K problematice šikany v současné škole. In Klima současné české školy (pp. 259-265). Brno: Konvoj.

  • Laznibatová J. (2001). Nadané dieťa jeho vývin vzdelávanie a podporovanie. Bratislava: Iris.

  • Laznibatová J. (2003). Nadané dieťa: jeho vývin vzdelávanie a podporovanie. Bratislava: Iris.

  • Laznibatová J. & Mačišáková V. (2000). Osobnostné sociálne a emocionálne charakteristiky vývinu intelektovo nadaných detí. Psychológia a patopsychológia dieťaťa 35(4) 304-322.

  • Machů E. (2006). Rozpoznávání a vzdělávání rozumově nadaných dětí v běžné třídě základní školy: příručka pro učitele a studenty učitelství. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

  • Martínek Z. (2009). Agresivita a kriminalita školní mládeže. Brno: Grada Publishing.

  • Martínková M. F. (2013). Jednání žáků 9. tříd ZŠ při konfrontaci se šikanou. In Současné trendy ve výchově ke zdraví (pp. 397-402). Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

  • McCallister C. Nash W. R. & Meckstroth E. (1996). The social competence of gifted children: Experiments and experience. Roeper Review 18 273-276.

  • MŠMT. Vyhláška č. 72/2005 Sb. o poskytování poradenských služeb ve školách a školských poradenských zařízeních.

  • MŠMT. Vyhláška č. 73/2005 Sb. o vzdělávání dětí žáků a studentů se speciálními vzdělávacími potřebami a dětí žáků a studentů mimořádně nadaných.

  • MŠMT. Zákon č. 561/2004 Sb. o předškolním základním středním vyšším odborném a jiném vzdělávání (školský zákon).

  • Neihart M. (2002). The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Chidren: What Do We Know? Waco: Prufrock Press.

  • Němec J. & Vlčková K. (2011). Vnímání sociálního klimatu školy žáky: srovnání 1. a 2. stupně základní školy. In E. Walterová Dva světy základní školy? Úskalí přechodu z 1. na 2. stupeň (pp. 162-196). Praha: Karolinum.

  • Nugent S. A. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestations and classroom-based interventions. Prufrock Journal. doi:10.4219/jsge-2000-630

  • Olweus D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Orpinas P. H. (2003). School bullying: Changing the problem by changing the school. School Psychology Review 431-444.

  • Passow A. H. (1993). Research and education in the year 2000 and beyond. In International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. (pp. 883-903). Oxford: New York: Pergamon Press.

  • Peterson J. S. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims perpetrators prevalence and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly 50(2) 148-168.

  • Portešová Š. (2002). Perfekcionismus v americkém pojetí. Československá psychologie. 46(2) 150-157.

  • Preusser K. J. (1994). The role of self-esteem in mediating the perfectionism-depression connection. Journal of College Student development 35(2) 88-93.

  • Rimm S. B. (2001). Keys to parenting the gifted child. New York: Barron's.

  • Robers S. K. (2013). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012. Washington D. C.: National Center for Education Statistics U.S.: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013036.pdf

  • Roberts R. D. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion 1(3) 196-231.

  • Roedell W. C. (1989). Early development of gifted children. In J. O.-K. Vantassel-Baska Patterns of Influence on Gifted Learners: The Home the Self and the School (pp. 13-28). New Yourk: Teachers College Press.

  • Silverman L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3-28). Denver: Love.

  • Spivack G. (1974). Social Adjustment of Young Children: A Cognitive Approach to Solving Real-Life Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.

  • Stapf A. (2010). Hochbegabte Kinder: Persönlichkeit Entwicklung Förderung. Auflage: 5. München: C. H. Beck.

  • Škrabánková J. (2012). Role pedagoga při péči o nadané žáky (specifikováno pro střední školy). In Příručka pro práci s nadanými žáky (41-64).

  • Terman L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Mental and psychical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford: Stanford University.

  • Vojtová A. (2009). Případové studie žáků 1. stupně základní školy. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

  • Vojtová V. F. (2011). Předcházení problémům v chování žáků: dotazník pro žáky. Praha: Národní ústav pro vzdělávání.

  • Webb T. (2005). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD bipolar OCD Asperger's depression and other disorders. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press Inc.

Search
Journal information
Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 206 181 2
PDF Downloads 113 102 3