A predictive structural model for gifted students' performance: A study based on intelligence and its implicit theories

21Citations
Citations of this article
155Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The current study aimed at identifying to what extent gifted students' academic performance differs in light of their emotional, social, analytical, creative, practical, and implicit intelligence, and to explore which of these are more effective for differentiating students' performance. This study was also an attempt to determine the direct effects of different kinds of intelligence on student performance, and to generate a structural model that could explain the relationship among different kinds of intelligence, students' implicit theories of intelligence, and student performance. The 174 participants were randomly chosen from primary school students who participated in summer enrichment programs. An emotional intelligence scale, a social intelligence scale, the analytical, creative, and practical intelligence tests of the Aurora Battery, an implicit intelligence scale, and performance assessment inventory were administered. A cluster analysis revealed that there were three profiles for students. The structural equation model confirmed that the predictor factors had positive and significant effects on performance. These predictor variables accounted for (68%) of the percent of the variance in performance. Ultimately, the factors affecting student performance were, in order of decreasing magnitude, emotional intelligence, analytical intelligence, practical intelligence, creative intelligence, implicit intelligence, and social intelligence. Furthermore, there were strong effects of implicit theory of intelligence on the different kinds of intelligence.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ayoub, A. E. A., & Aljughaiman, A. M. (2016). A predictive structural model for gifted students’ performance: A study based on intelligence and its implicit theories. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.018

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free