leadership behavior for tenth grade gifted students at

27
191 712 7112 ISSN 1726-6807 http://www.iugaza.edu.ps/ar/periodical/ : . 53 337 1122 1121 57.1 57.5 1713 311 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.

Upload: others

Post on 24-Feb-2022

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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.

291

11121111

111111151115111.

2225

1112

.25222.

Education Reform for Knowledge

Economy

1115

291

2222

2222

111.

( Bennis, 1999)

Rudnitsk,1996

291

1119

(Van & Stambugh,2004)

2

1

1 1713

1 1713

291

11221121

291

311311

1115

Sternberg,1999

291

Creasy,1989

Hunsaker,2009

22..

299

1112

51

(135)51

122

111.

2.99

.1

(Volk,2006)

25.1.51

.3

....

.1

1111

2006 Myers & Silavir (

122

211

.

Sims,2002

212

.1

Chan,2000

Rates Rating Scale For Leader Ship

.3

RRSL

RRSL

1112111.

121

11221121

222 1925

55.

2

2

31162 30

56

31185 61

147

31111162

71

31179 57

190

121

31117392

127

311164118

337

52

912.

52

53

121

1.1722

3.512

21755

175.571.

57193

SPSS

T-test

2

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

3.79 3.57 3.32

3.79 - 0.22* 0.47*

3.57 - 0.25*

3.32 -

(6)

(Myers & Silavir,2006)

1713

7

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

(1986)

.

1111

111.

:(2008)1

:(1999)

:(2003)

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.