Characteristics and educational needs of gifted young scientists: a focus group study

Abstract

The Gifted Young Scientists (GYS) is the students who have certain intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or academic abilities that are higher than the average ability of students in general, they need different educational services (special need). This study aims to analyze the potential of gifted young scientists in terms of critical thinking in the village area in Indonesia. The study was conducted using a multi-case multi-site case study design involving 4 managers, 5 teachers, and 5 students in the High School. Data collected through in depth and focus group interviews then analyzed qualitatively with thematically. The study found that there were four characteristics of gifted young scientists in the High School studied, namely; (i) very active and creative, (ii) easy and quick to receive information and materials, (iii) have a very high curiosity, (iv) love the high-level and challenging learning process. These findings indicate that the self-contained class students in high school meet the criteria of gifted young scientists. Thus, differentiated curriculum, high quality learning process with different teachers, materials, and approaches need to be designed seriously and continuously for the maximum student development process.

Keywords

• Gifted Young Scientists,Management Studies,Significant Superior Ability,Islamic School

References

1. Akbuber, B. A., Erdik, E., Guney, H., Cimsitoglu, G. G., & Akbuber, C. (2019). The Gifted Student Workshop: A Method Proposal for The Evaluation of Gifted Student Problems in Science and Art Centers. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(1), 22–39.
2. Akca, F. (2010). Talented and Average Intelligent Children ’ s Levels of Using Emotional Intelligence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.5, p.553–558.
3. Alberta, E. (2012). Parenting Stress in Mother Gifted and Talented.
4. Alghawi, M. A. (2017). Gifted Education in The United Arab Emirates. Journal of Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, Vol.4(No.1), p.1–18.
5. Al-Hadabi, A. S. D. (2010). Yemeni Basic Education Teachers’ Perception of Gifted Students’ Characteristics and the Methods Used for Identifying These Characteristics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.7, p.480–487.
6. Altintas, E., & Ozdemir, A. S. (2012). The Determination Of The Ideas Of The Teachers In Turkey About The Gifted Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.46, p.2188–2192.
7. Altun, F., & Yazici, H. (2010). Learning styles of the gifted students in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.9, 198–202.
8. Anuruthwong, U. (2017). Education for The Gifted / Talented in Thailand. Cogent Education, Vol.4(No.1), p.1–17.

9. Anuruthwong, U. (2017). Education for the gifted/talented in Thailand. Journal of Cogent Education, Vol.4(No.1), p.1–17. Aydemir, D., Baykoc, N., & Uyaroglub, B. (2014). Inequality in Educational Opportunities of Gifted and Talented Children in Türkiye. Proceding Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 1133–1138.
10. Ayebo, A. (2016). Teachers’ Perceptions on Identifying and Catering to The Needs of Mathematically Gifted and Talented Students. Journal Education of Malaysia, Vol.41(No.1), p.19–24.
11. Bakar, A. Y. A., & Ishak, N. M. (2010). Counselling Issues of Gifted Students Attending a School Holiday Residential Program : A Malaysian Experience. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.7(No.3), p.568–573.
12. Bogdan, & Biklen. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education : An Introduction to theorises and Methods. Boston: Allyn Bacon.
13. Coll, R. K. (2017). Do Gifted Students View and Use Mental Models Differently from Others ? Educación Química, Vol.20(No.1), p.18–31.
14. Creswell. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). In Scientific Research. CA: Sage: Thousand Oaks.
15. Cristian, B.-B., & Popovici, D.-V. (2014). Being Twice Exceptional: Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.127, p.519–523.
16. Cross, T. . (1997). Psychological and Social Aspects of Educating Gifted Student’s. Peabody Journal of Education, Vol.72(No.3-4), p.180–200.
17. Daud, W. R. W., Muhamad, T. A., & Yunus, M. M. (2018). The Relationship between Multiple Intelligences and Attitude towards Sports among Academically Gifted Students. Malaysian Journal Of Education, Vol.43(No.3).
18. Davis, & Rimm. (1989). No Title.
19. Dollarhide, C. T. (2013). Professional Identity Development of Counselor Education Doctoral Students. American Counseling Association, Vol.52. Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (1993). In Search of Reality: Unraveling the Myths About Tracking, Ability Grouping, and The Gifted. Vol.16, p.4–7.
20. George, P. (2005). A Rationale For Differentiating Instruction In The Regular Classroom. Theory Into Practice, Vol.44, p.185–193.
21. Godor, B. P., & Szymanski, A. (2017a). Sense of Belonging or Feeling Marginalized ? Using PISA 2012 to Assess The State of Academically Gifted Students Within The EU. Journal of High Ability Studies, Vol.28(No.2), p.181–197.
22. Grigorenko, E. L. (2017). Gifted Education in Russia: Developing, Threshold , or Developed. Journal of Cogent Education, Vol.4(No.16), p.1–12.
23. Güçyeter, Ş., Kanlı, E., Özyaprak, M., & Leana-taşcılar, M. Z. (2017). Serving Gifted Children in Developmental and Threshold Countries—Turkey. Cogent Education, Vol.4(No.128), p.1–16.
24. Gur, C. (2011). Do Gifted Children Have Similar Characteristics?: Observation of Three Gifted Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.12, p.493–500.
25. Habibi, B., Hartinah, S., Umam, R., Syazali, M., Lestari, F., Abdurrahman, A., & Jauhariyah, D. (2019). Factor Determinants of Teacher Professionalism as Development of Student Learning Education at School of SMK PGRI in Tegal City, Indonesia. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(2), 125–134.
26. Hartati, S., Purnama, S., Heriati, T., & Kinarya, E. (2019). Empowerment Gifted Young Scientists ( GYS ) in Millennial Generation : Impact of Quality Improvement in Education of Gender Perspective. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(December), 885–898.
27. Hartinah, S., Suherman, S., Syazali, M., Efendi, H., Junaidi, R., Jermsittiparsert, K., & Umam, R. (2019). Probing-Prompting Based on Ethnomathematics Learning Model : The Effect on Mathematical Communication Skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(December), 799–814.
28. Hertberg-Davis, H. L., & Callahan, C. M. (2013). Introduction. In Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. p. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Hurford, L. H. M. (2013). Gifted and Talented Students in Selandia. In Encyclopedia onThesis (pp. p.1–117). University of Canterburg.
30. Idrus, M. (2013). Layanan Pendidikan Bagi Anak Gifted. Psikopedagogia: Jurnal Bimbingan Dan Konseling, 2(2), 116–131.
31. Ishak, N. M., Abidin, M. H. Z., & Bakar, A. Y. A. (2014). Dimensions of Social Skills and Their Relationship With Empathy Among Gifted and Talented Students in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 750–753.
32. Jo, S., & Ku, J. (2011). Problem Based Learning Using Real-Time Data in Scienc E Education for the Gifted. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700304
33. Karimi, M., & Ali, M. B. (2010). Comparison of Alexithymia and Emotional Intelligence in Gifted and Non-Gifted High School Students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.5, p.753–756.
34. Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). Who Rises to The Top? Early Indicators. Journal of Psychological Science, Vol.24, p.648–659.
35. Khalil, M., & Accariya, Z. (2016). Identifying “Good” Teachers for Gifted Students. Scientific Research An Academic Publisher, Vol.7(No.3).
36. Leroux, J. A. (2007). Stretching the Limits of Learning Mentorships for Gifted High School Students. Journal the Vacational Aspect of Education, Vol.44(No.3), p.1992.
37. Loveless, T., Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2008). High-Achieving Students in The Era of NCLB. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
38. March, S. E. (2015). Wonewoc-Center Gifted and Talented Programs and Procedures. In School Board Approved Procedures (pp. p.1–32).
39. Ngara, C. (2017). Gifted Education in Zimbabwe. Journal of Cogent Education, Vol.4(No.37), p.1–13.
40. Obeng, R. (2016). An Exploration of the Case Study Methodological Approach through Research and Development. Canada: Northeastern University Publisher.
41. Ozsoy, Y. (2019). A General View to the Academic Journals in the Field of Gifted Education in Turkey. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 6(1), 40–53.
42. R., O. F., & Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities. In The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children (pp. p.177–192.). Waco TX: Prufrock Press.
43. Razak, A. Z. A., Zainun, A., Asmuje, N. F., & Sallehan, S. M. (2017). A Study Between Perfectionism And Thinking Style Among Gifted And Talented Muslim Students In Malaysia. AL-QANATIR:International Journal Of Islamic Studies, Vol.6(No.2).
44. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K., Westberg, K. L. (1997). Scales for Rating The Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
45. Roy, P. (2017). Gifted Education in India. Journal of Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, Vol.4(No.78), p.1–18.
46. Tantay, S., & Kurt, O. (2014). Research on Istanbul Beyazıt Ford Otosan Primary School for Gifted or Talented Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 1022–1028.
47. Ugulu, I. (2015a). A Quantitative Investigation on Recycling Attitudes of Gifted Talented Students. Journal of Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, Vol.29(No.81), p.820–826.
48. Vogelaar, B., & Resing, W. C. M. (2018). Changes Over Time and Transfer of Analogy Problem Solving of Gifted and Non-Gifted Children in a Dynamic Testing Setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.38(No.7), p.898–914.
49. Wechsler, S. M., & Feith, D. de S. (2017). The Scenario of Gifted in Brasil. Journal Education of Malaysia, Vol.4(No.1), p.1–12.
50. Wulan, D. K. (2011). Peran Pemahaman Karakteristik Siswa Cerdas Istimewa Berbakat Istimewa (CIBI) Dalam Merencanakan Proses Belajar Yang Efektif Dan Sesuai Kebutuhan Siswa. Journal of Humaniora, Vol.2(No.1), p.269–276.
51. Yin, R. (2013). Qualitative Research Methodology. Journal of American, Vol.3(No.1).
52. Zhang, Z. (2017). Gifted Education in China. Journal of Cogent Education, Vol.12(No.4), p.1–12.