leadership behavior for tenth grade gifted students at
TRANSCRIPT
1917127112
ISSN 1726-6807 http://www.iugaza.edu.ps/ar/periodical/
:
.
53
337
11221121
57.1
57.5
1713311
Leadership Behavior for tenth grade gifted students at
king Abdullah ∏’ schools for Excellence and ordinary
students at public Jordanian schools Abstract: This study aimed at comparing the leadership behavior for tenth
grade students at King Abdullah II schools for excellence with ordinary
students at public Jordanian schools, according certain variables relevant to
student such as : Residency, and family's monthly income.
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, researcher developed the
study's tool consists of (35) items in order to know the leadership behavior
for excellence and ordinary students at public Jordanian schools, and to
reveal differences in leadership behavior according to some variables.
291
The sample of the study consists of (337) male and female primary tenth
grade students form King Abdullah II Schools for excellence and Public
Jordanian schools, in the second semester of the school year 2011/2012.
After conducting statistical analysis, the results of the study showed that
leadership behavior of talented students is high with mean of (3.70) while
leadership behavior of ordinary students at public schools is medium with
mean of (3.43). Results revealed that there is statistically significant
differences ( 0.05) due to the effect of family income variable for
students of income less than (500) JD. However there are statistically
significant difference due to the effect of residency for Salt center variable.
Researcher recommends, to benefit from leadership course available at King
Abdullah II for excellence schools, and to conduct further studies about
leadership behavior according to different variables.
1112
2291
22912.
111.
121
2
11 3.96 0.64 1
33.93 0.64 2
13.90 0.72 3
83.89 0.65 4
23.86 0.61 5
123.84 0.57 6
93.78 0.68 7
223.78 0.63 7
27 3.78 0.67 7
29 3.78 0.61 7
103.76 0.77 11
163.73 0.57 12
143.72 0.57 13
183.72 0.63 13
73.71 0.65 15
43.70 0.66 16
153.70 0.64 16
121
173.69 0.58 18
25 3.68 0.64 19
23 3.67 0.59 20
26 3.67 0.61 20
30 3.67 0.58 11
133.65 0.59 23
193.64 0.56 24
53.63 0.63 25
31 3.62 0.49 26
28 3.61 0.69 27
34 3.59 0.49 19
63.56 0.55 29
203.56 0.55 30
24 3.56 0.60 30
213.53 0.55 32
35 3.53 0.50 33
33 3.52 0.50 34
32 3.50 0.50 35
3.70 0.31
(2
57.11752
57215731
)22
5721171.5(
121
5725
171.55(
57311731
515731
0.50
111.
3
3
3 3.59 0.61 1
24 3.59 0.49 1
25 3.58 0.49 3
11 3.53 0.50 4
8 3.51 0.60 5
121
26 3.51 0.50 5
27 3.51 0.50 5
15 3.49 0.50 8
20 3.48 0.50 9
11 3.48 0.50 9
6 3.46 0.50 9
12 3.46 0.50 9
23 3.46 0.50 9
1 3.45 0.50 14
113.45 0.50 14
9 3.44 0.58 16
4 3.43 0.54 17
18 3.42 0.49 18
30 3.42 0.61 18
11 3.42 0.49 18
29 3.41 0.49 21
11 3.41 0.61 21
28 3.40 0.49 23
14 3.39 0.49 24
16 3.39 0.49 24
21 3.38 0.49 26
129
13 3.36 0.48 27
17 3.35 0.48 28
19 3.35 0.48 28
2 3.34 0.50 30
22 3.33 0.47 31
5 3.32 0.49 32
7 3.32 0.47 32
31 3.30 0.58 34
10 3.27 0.69 35
3.43 0.19
3
3.430.19
5732571.
51.
5721171217.2
52
57511739
21
571.1712
122
111.
1713
4
4
30 4.14 .212
56 3.75 .089
61 3.43 .172
147 3.70 .306
62 3.63 .044
71 3.43 .064
57 3.21 .113
122
190 3.43 .185
92 3.79 .269
127 3.57 .177
118 3.32 .185
337 3.55 .279
4
57.2
573.
5751
1713One way
ANOVA3
5
10.184 2 5.092 208.141 0.000
3.523 144 .024
13.706 146
5.340 2 2.670 447.521 0.000
1.116 187 .006
6.456 189
121
11.631 2 5.816 133.302 0.000
14.571 334 .044
26.202 336
5
1713
255751117111
1713
1
6
4.14 3.75 3.43
4.14 - 0.39* 0.51*
3.75 - 0.32*
3.43 -
3.63 3.43 3.21
3.63 - 0.20* 0.42*
3.43 - 0.22*
3.21 -
121
7
T-test
31162 3.97 .222 13.998 0.000*
31185 3.50 .183
311111 3.56 .093 20.348 0.000*
31179 3.25 .117
311173 3.71 .250 13.208 0.000*
311164 3.38 .200
7
1713
25711917111
311
311
1713
311
311
311
121
2..1:
(2003)
:(1999)
111.
:(2009)
212
(2009)
(2009)
229. .
Bennis , w, ( 1999): The leadership advantage , leader to leader
,(12),18-23
Chan , David . ( 2000 ): Assessing Leader ship Among Chfinese .
Secondary Students in Hong Kong , Use of the Rating Scale for Lader
Ship Gifted Child Quarterly (44) ,( 2) 17-32 .
Creasy ,marlin Brooks.(1989): Attitudes of teachers in Indiana . Public
schools . Toward needs of gifted Talented education : Pereeived by
Teachers . with wilhout formal training (Gifted education ) : DAI –A (51)
(2), 355 .
Hunsaker, S. L. (2010): Documenting gifted program results for key
decision-makers. Roeper Review, (23), 80-82.
Myers, R & Sialvir, J ( 2006 ): Emergence and maintenance of
leadership among gifted students in group problem solving, Restoh
publishing company ( 12) (4) , 25, 50.
Rudnitsk, R, A, (1996): Global leadership theory: The Oretcal Roates,
Princiels, and possibilities for Future, Giffed Education
International, (11) (1)80-85.
121
Simis , Joan ( 2002 ): Leader Ship Derelopment for K- 12 Students In
Gufted Education , A dissertation Submitted npatial Fulfill Memt of
the requirement for the degree of doctor in education , Seattle
University , U.S.A
Sternberg, R, J (1999 ): Widsom intenigence , and creativing
synthesized , New York ; Cambridge University press .
Van Tan tassel , Joyce & Stambgugh, Tamra (2004): Comprehensive
Curriculum for Gifted learners, 3 rd
U.S.A.
Volk, Valerie, ( 2006 ): Gifted children group work in education and
leadership, (28) (3), 175-178.