پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 834 |
| تعداد مقالات | 6,874 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 10,824,330 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 7,734,007 |
نیمرخ شکوفایی دانش‌آموزان سرآمد براساس مدل پرمای سلیگمن: بررسی تفاوت‌های جنسیتی | ||
| اندیشه های نوین تربیتی | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 17، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 62، دی 1400، صفحه 221-240 اصل مقاله (537.42 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jontoe.2021.32307.3095 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| الهه حجازی1؛ فهیمه عباسی* 2؛ رضوان حکیم زاده3؛ جواد اژه ای4 | ||
| 1دانشیار گروه روانشناسی تربیتی و مشاوره، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکترا روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3دانشیار گروه روش‌ها و برنامه ریزی درسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 4استاد گروه روانشناسی تربیتی و مشاوره، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پژوهش حاضر با هدف ترسیم و مقایسه نیمرخ شکوفایی دانش‌آموزان سرآمد دختر و پسر دوره اول متوسطه (رده سنی ۱۵-۱۳ سال) براساس مدل شکوفایی سلیگمن انجام شد. پژوهش به لحاظ هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش توصیفی از نوع مطالعات توصیفی-مقایسه‌ای بود. جامعه آماری پژوهش حاضر را دانش‌آموزان سرآمد دختر و پسر دوره اول متوسطه شهرستان تبریز در سال‌تحصیلی ۹۹-۱۳۹۸ تشکیل می‌دادند. ۵۹۲ نفر (۲۲۶ نفر دانش‌آموز پسر و ۳۶۶ نفر دانش‌آموز دختر) به روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای از بین دانش‌آموزان سرآمد دوره اول متوسطه این شهرستان انتخاب شدند. شرکت‌کنندگان پرسشنامه شکوفایی باتلر و کرن (۲۰۱۶) که برای سنجش مولفه‌های پنجگانه مدل پرما طراحی شده است را تکمیل نمودند. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از روش تحلیل واریانس چندمتغیره صورت گرفت. نتایج نشان داد در هیجانات مثبت و روابط مثبت تفاوت مثبت و معنادار به نفع دختران و در معنادهی و دستاورد تفاوت معنادار به نفع پسران وجود دارد. لیکن هیچ تفاوت معناداری در درگیر شدن بین دانش‌آموزان دختر و پسر بدست نیامد. هم‌چنین با وجود تفاوت دانش‌آموزان دختر و پسر در ابعاد مختلف شکوفایی، نمره کل شکوفایی آنان تفاوت معناداری با هم نداشت. یافته‌های این پژوهش می‌تواند به معلمان و مشاوران در شناسایی گروههایی با نقاط قوت و ضعف خاص و انجام مداخلات ارتقا شکوفایی در محیط‌های آموزشی یاری رساند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| نیمرخ شکوفایی؛ مدل پرمای سلیگمن؛ تفاوت‌های جنسیتی؛ دانش‌آموزان سرآمد | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Flourishing Profile of Gifted Students Based on Seligman's PERMA Model: A Study of Gender Differences | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Elaheh Hejazi1؛ Fahimeh Abbasi2؛ Rezvan Hakimzadeh3؛ Javad Ejei4 | ||
| 1Associate professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Ph.D. candidate, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Associate professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 4Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract The present study aimed to describe and compare the flourishing profile of gifted male and female high school students (13-15 years old) based on Seligman’s PERMA model. This was applied research in terms of purpose and descriptive-comparative study based on research method. The statistical population of the present study consisted of the gifted male and female high school students in the Tabriz province in the academic year of 2009-2010. 592 students (226 male students and 366 female students) were selected by cluster random sampling method from this province’s gifted high school students. Respondents completed the PERMA-Profiler (Butler and Kern, 2016), designed to assess the five components of the PERMA model. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance. The results showed that there is a positive and significant difference in favor of girls in positive emotions and positive relationships and a significant difference in favor of boys in meaning and achievement. However, there was no significant difference in engagement between male and female students. Also, despite the differences between male and female students in different dimensions of flourishing, their total flourishing scores did not differ significantly. The findings can help teachers and counselors in identifying groups with specific strengths and weaknesses and performing interventions to promote prosperity in educational settings. Introduction Educational systems pay special attention to the gifted students and having a picture of their health and wellbeing is important to them because wellbeing is considered a necessary condition for achieving the highest personal and professional development. There is a long history of interest in how giftedness affects psychological wellbeing. A review of research findings shows that although there is interest in the well-being of gifted students, our knowledge of the subject is still insufficient despite conflicting findings (Neihart, 1999). Gender differences in gifted student wellbeing is also a subject that has not been well addressed in previous research. On the other hand, in recent years, researchers in the field of wellbeing and mental health have focused on the concept of "flourishing". Different conceptualizations of flourishing have been proposed. Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model is among the important conceptualizations in this area. This model advocate that flourishing arises from five well-being pillars (positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment). Kern, Waters, Alder, and White (2014) argue that this model is an appropriate framework in educational settings to identify groups with specific strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, the present study intends to describe and compare the flourishing profile of gifted male and female high school students (13-15 years old) based on Seligman’s PERMA model. Method This was applied research in terms of purpose and descriptive-comparative study based on research method. The statistical population of the present study consisted of the gifted male and female high school students in the Tabriz province in the academic year of 2009-2010. 592 students (226 male students and 366 female students) were selected by cluster random sampling method from this province’s gifted high school students. Respondents completed the PERMA-Profiler (Butler and Kern, 2016), designed to assess the five components of the PERMA model. Butler and Kern (2016) developed this scale through extensive theoretical and empirical research based on five components of Seligman’s Model of Flourishing (2011). The scale consisted of 15 items (three items for each component). The measures of multiple dimensions of wellbeing can be mentioned as the outstanding feature of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed in the present study and the fitness indices were obtained as x2/df = 1.81, RMSEA = 0.05, GFI = 0.90, and NFI = 0.94, which were in an acceptable range and the five-factor structure was confirmed. Cronbach’s alphas of the entire scale and subscales of positive emotions, engagement, positive relations, meaning and, achievement were reported at 0.96, 0.96, 0.70, 0.84, 0.93, and 0.82 respectively. Data were analyzed using SPSS and multivariate analysis of variance. Finding In the present study, participants consisted of 226 male and 366 female gifted students (M= 13/83, SD= 0/89). After the assumptions of multivariate analysis of variance are met, the results of the Pillay test (F (5,294) = 22/715, Value= 0/721) indicated that this test is significant at the level of p<0.01. Results of paired comparison (Table1) show that there is a positive and significant difference in favor of girls in positive emotions and positive relationships and a significant difference in favor of boys in meaning and achievement. However, there was no significant difference in engagement between male and female students. Also, based on a one-way analysis of variance ((F (1,298) = 0/061, Value= 22/374) despite the differences between male and female students in different dimensions of flourishing, their total flourishing scores did not differ significantly (Figure1). Discussion and Results The present study aimed to describe and compare the flourishing profile of gifted male and female high school students based on Seligman’s PERMA model. The results showed that there is a positive and significant difference in favor of girls in positive emotions and positive relationships and a significant difference in favor of boys in meaning and achievement. However, there was no significant difference in engagement between male and female students. Also, despite the differences between male and female students in different dimensions of flourishing, their total flourishing scores did not differ significantly. The findings of this study can help teachers and counselors in identifying groups with specific strengths and weaknesses and performing interventions to promote prosperity in educational settings. The statistical population of the present study is limited to the gifted students and the generalization of the results to non-gifted students and other developmental stages should be done with caution. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Flourishing Profile, Seligman’s PERMA model, Gender Differences, Gifted Students | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Allen, P., & Bennett, K. (2008). SPSS for the health & behavioural sciences. Thomson. Bergold, S., Wirthwein, L., Rost, D. H., & Steinmayr, R. (2015). Are gifted adolescents more satisfied with their lives than their non-gifted peers?. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 1623. Brody, L. (2009). Gender, emotion, and the family. Harvard University Press. Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (p. 395–408). The Guilford Press. Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3): 1-48. Casino-García, A. M., García-Pérez, J., & Llinares-Insa, L. I. (2019). Subjective emotional well-being, emotional intelligence, and mood of gifted vs. unidentified students: A relationship model. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(18): 3266. Chaplin, T. M. (2015). Gender and emotion expression: A developmental contextual perspective. Emotion Review, 7(1): 14-21. Chaplin, T. M., & Aldao, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4): 735. Cotterell, J. (2007). Social networks in youth and adolescence (Vol. 1). Routledge. Danesh, E. (2010). Comparison of happiness and physical and mental health levels of married and single university students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 (4): 56-71 (Text in Persian). Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social indicators research, 97(2): 143-156. Forgeard, M. J., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International journal of wellbeing, 1(1). Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American psychologist, 60(7): 678. Freeman. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 80–97). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Freeman, J. (2006). Giftedness in the Long Term, Professor. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4): 384-403. Froh, J. J., Yurkewicz, C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Gratitude and subjective well-being in early adolescence: Examining gender differences. Journal of adolescence, 32(3): 633-650. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive therapy and research, 14(5): 449-468. Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (p. 3–22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Golestaneh, Seyed Mousa and Ghorbani, Aftab (2013). Comparison of perfectionism and its dimensions in adolescent girls and boys. The Second Congress of Social Psychology, Tehran: March 5 and 7, 2014. (Text in Persian). Hewitt, P. L. Flett, g. L. & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(2): 276-280. Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1): 62-90. Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well‐being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 1(2): 137-164. Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social indicators research, 110(3): 837-861. Kern, M. L., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaceted approach: Associations with physical health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 5(6): 500–513. Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of health and social behavior, 43(2): 207-222. Kiani, Zeinab and Mazaheri, Mehrdad (1397). A comparative study of the feeling of happiness of male and female high school students in Zahedan. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies, 15 (31): 199-216 (Text in Persian). Košir, K., Horvat, M., Aram, U., & Jurinec, N. (2016). Is being gifted always an advantage? Peer relations and self-concept of gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2): 129-148. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(3): 686. Kroesbergen, E. H., van Hooijdonk, M., Van Viersen, S., Middel-Lalleman, M. M., & Reijnders, J. J. (2016). The psychological well-being of early identified gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1): 16-30. LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2): 305. Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., & De Fraine, B. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4): 498-518. Litster, K., & Roberts, J. (2011). The self‐concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non‐gifted students: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2): 130-140. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American psychologist, 45(4): 513. Martin-Krumm, C. (2018). Découvrir la psychologie positive. InterEditions. Masson, A. M., Cadot, M., & Ansseau, M. (2003). Failure effects and gender differences in perfectionism. L'encephale, 29(2): 125-135. McArdle, S. (2010). Exploring domain‐specific perfectionism. Journal of Personality, 78(2): 493-508. Mehran, Mohsen (2013). Identify the relationship between tissue factors (teachers), academic involvement and academic achievement. Master Thesis. Faculty of Psychology: University of Tehran (Text in Persian). Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications. Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well‐being: What does the empirical literature say?. Roeper Review, 22(1): 10-17. Pollet, E., & Schnell, T. (2017). Brilliant: But what for? Meaning and subjective well-being in the lives of intellectually gifted and academically high-achieving adults. Journal of happiness studies, 18(5): 1459-1484. Roffey, S. (2012). Introduction to positive relationships: Evidence-based practice across the world. In Positive relationships (pp. 1-15). Springer, Dordrecht. Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1): 98. Rost, D. H. (2013). Handbuch intelligenz. Weinheim: Beltz. Saha, R., Huebner, E. S., Suldo, S. M., & Valois, R. F. (2010). A longitudinal study of adolescent life satisfaction and parenting. Child Indicators Research, 3(2): 149-165. Sayler, M. F., Boazman, J., Natesan, P., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2015). Subjective well-being of gifted American college students: an examination of psychometric properties of the PWI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4): 236-248. Seligman, M. E. (2011). Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Policy, 27(3): 1-60. Shamim, A., & Muazzam, A. (2018). Gender differences in positive emotion. Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 1: 125-137. Shields, S. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning. Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press. Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior?. American journal of sociology, 109(5): 1137-1176. Sprecher, S., & Sedikides, C. (1993). Gender differences in perceptions of emotionality: The case of close heterosexual relationships. Sex roles, 28(9-10): 511-530. Stoeber, J., & Childs, J. H. (2010). The assessment of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism: Subscales make a difference. Journal of personality assessment, 92(6): 577-585. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. MA: AllynandBacon. VanderStoep, S. W., Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1994). The relationship among principal “venturesomeness”, a stress on excellence, and the personal engagement of teachers and students. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3): 254-271. VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31): 8148-8156. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2): 125-151. Wetering, E. J., Exel, N. J. A., & Bruwer, W. B. F. (2010). Piecing the jigsaw puzzle of adolescent happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31: 923-935. Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011). Focussing on over excitabilities: Studies with intellectually gifted and academically talented adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3): 337-342. Zahn-Waxler, C., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Marceau, K. (2008). Disorders of childhood and adolescence: Gender and psychopathology. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 4: 275-303. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,125 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 239 |
||
