Американский Научный Журнал COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN PROFESSIONAL WORK WITH GIFTED CHILDREN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAINING OF TEACHERS

Summary. The scientific paper presents sequences of comparisons between the CG and EG1 in the control (CG) and experimental (EG1) groups in order to investigate important occupational characteristics at different levels. The results of the study show the results of successful teachers' work with gifted children with varying degrees of success in working with gifted children before training at CG and EG1. As a result, the CG and EG1 revealed differences in the level of development of teachers' personal qualities with varying degrees of success in their work with gifted children prior to training. Скачать в формате PDF
14 American Scientific Journal № ( 33 ) / 20 20
ПЕДАГОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN PROFESSIONAL
WORK WITH GIFTED CHI LDREN DIFFERENT COMP ONENTS OF PSYCHOLOGI CAL
TRAINING OF TEACHERS

Huseynova Z.N .
Ph.D in pedagogical psychology
Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University ,
Azerbaijan

Summary . The scientific paper presents sequences of comparisons between the CG and EG1 in the control
(CG) and experimental (EG1) groups in order to investigate important occupational characteristics at different
levels. The results of the study show the results of successful teachers' work with gifted children with varying
degrees of success in working with gifted children before training at CG and EG 1. As a result, the CG and EG1
revealed differences in the level of development of teachers' personal qualities with varying degrees of success in
their work with gifted children prior to training.
Keywords: reflexivity, affiliate motivation, personal orientation, creative activity, abnormality

In our study, comparisons were made in the
control (CG) and experimental (EG1) groups. Our goal
is to explore different levels of professional quality
between CG and EG1. The CG was represented by 20
teachers and EG1 by 44 teachers. In CG and EG1,
teachers qualify for work experience and qualifications.
The study showed that the CG had significantly higher
average of teachers' success criteria th an EG1 (Mx =
15.35 and 4.22). Significant differences in teacher
success rates are found in CG and EG1: U = 52.2, r
<0.001.
The study revealed differences in the level of
development of the teachers' personal qualities, with
varying degrees of success in t heir work with gifted
children before training in CG and EG1. In the CG,
teachers found that reflexivity was higher than EG1
(Mx = 128 and 110). The difference is that the ability
to reflexivity is very important as a tool for teachers'
self -esteem, and it manifests itself as a mechanism for
self -development. This ability has been highly
developed by CG -certified teachers. The empirical
significance criterion was U = 203.5, r <0.001.

Table 1.
Results of successful work of teachers with different performance indicators in working with gifted
children before training in CG and EG1
Group teachers
Results of successful work of teachers with different performance indicators in
working with gifted children before training in CG and EG1
Mx SKO Sv
Teachers who succeed 15,35 5,88 38,30
Teachers who cannot
succeed 4,22 3,79 89,73

Table 2.
The level of reflexivity (in points) of teachers with different performance indicators in working with gifted
children before training
Group teachers
The level of reflexivity (in points) of teachers with different performance
indicators in working with gifted children before training
Mx SKO Sv
Teachers who succeed 128,30 12,17 9,48
Teachers who cannot
succeed 110,18 17,69 16,06

Figure 2 illustrates the level of affiliate motivation in teachers with different performance indicators before
working with gifted children at CG and EG1.

American Scientific Journal № ( 33) / 20 20 15

Figure 1. Development of reflexivity in teachers with different performance indicators (points) b efore working
with gifted children in CG and EG1

Table 3.
Level of affiliation motivation in teachers with different performance indicators (points) before working
with gifted children at CG and EG1
Motives Teachers who succeed Before training
Mx SKO Sv Mx SKO Sv
“Trying to
communicate” 129,15 21,38 16,56 133,48 26,95 20,19
“Fear of being isolated” 132,35 21,71 16,40 125,04 29,57 23,65

Figure 2. Affiliate motivation for teachers with different performance indicators before working with gifted
children in CG and EG1 level of development (points)

As it can be seen from the table and figure,
teachers' success points at CG and EG1 at the
developmental level of motivation for communication
(Mx = 129.15 and 133.48) and fear of isolation (Mx =
132.35 and 125.04), the differences between them
clearly obvious.
The results show that teachers in EG1 are more
focused on interaction than their teachers at CG. In the
CG, the teachers found very little difference in the
motivation of "fear of isolation." In practical activities,
however, it is possible to provide psychological
protection not to engage with talented children.
Consider the level of personal orientation: Expert
level in EG1 is higher than teachers’ level in CG (Mx =
11.38 and 10.25). In contrast, the EG1 teachers reported
higher levels of teacher training (Mx = 12.70 and
11.62) than did the EG1 teachers.
Statistically significant differences were:
internally: U = 3.37, r <0.005, and externally = U =
0.032, r <0.05. Table 17 shows the levels of personal
orientation for teachers with different performance
indicators when working with gifted children in CG and
EG1 before training:
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
Teachers who
succeed
Teachers who
cannot succeed
128,3
110,18
The level of teachers
reflexivity development
129,15
132,35 133,48
125,04
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
Trying to communicate Fear of being isolated

16 American Scientific Journal № ( 33 ) / 20 20
Table 4.
Priority training (points) for teachers with dif ferent performance indicators for working with gifted
children in CG and EG1 before training
Type of direction Teachers who succeed Before training
Mx SKO Sv Mx SKO Sv
External 10,25 1,77 17,30 11,38 2,04 17,92
İnternal 12,70 1,78 14,02 11,62 2,04 17,55

Figure 3. Levels of personal orientation (with points) for teachers with different performance indicators in
working with gifted children in CG and EG1 before training

As it can be seen from the teachers' work with
gifted children in the 'external' type (Mx = 10.25 and
12.70) and in the development of the 'internal' type
before the training (Mx = 11.38 and 11.62), the
differences between the success rates clearly show
themselves. The CG and EG1 recorded a high and
mo derate level of teacher importance. Differences
between groups were high at U = 268.0, r <0.001.
The results show that teachers who work with
gifted children rely on internal resources and
motivation in their professional activities. In the
meantime, they are locked in their own excitement.
There may be cases and situations in the education
process that can be attributed to them.
EG1 teachers are focused on the accuracy of the
results obtained for approval. They had little
confidence in themselves. High and medium
importance prevailed in CG and EG1. Differences
between the groups (Mx = 37.85 and 33.08) were found
in the level of creative activity.
The level of teachers' creative activity in the CG is
at medium to high levels, which enable s the ability of
teachers to work with gifted children to develop
independent creative activity. The level of teachers'
creative activity in EG1 is sometimes manifested at the
middle and sometimes high level.
Table 5 shows the developmental level of creati ve
activity of teachers with varying degrees of success in
working with gifted children in CG and EG1 before
training:
Further results (Mx = 34.85 and 69.12) were
obtained when analyzing the level of abnormal
development in teachers with different performa nce
indicators in working with gifted children in CG and
EG1 before training. The significance level of the
differences between CG and EG1 was U = 12.5, r
<0.001. In our opinion, significant differences are
explained by several factors: low levels of refle xivity,
cognitive components of teachers ’ training in the
experimental group, and adequate difficulties in self -
assessment. The results of our research once again
show that the level of abnormality changes after
training.
Table 5.
Level of development of creative activity of teachers with different indicators of success in working with
gifted children in CG and EG1 before training (points)
Group teachers
Level of development of creative activity of teachers with different
indicators of success in working with gifted children in CG and EG1 before
training
Mx SKO Sv
Teachers who succeed 37,85 3,70 9,78
Teachers who cannot succeed 33,08 6,39 9,32

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
External İnternal
10,25 11,38 12,7 11,62

American Scientific Journal № ( 33) / 20 20 17

Figure 4. Level of development of creative activity of teachers with different performance indicators in working
with gifted children in CG and EG1 before training

Our analysis showed that the levels of formation
of all components of psychological training were
significantly higher in CG teachers (Mx = 54.30 and
30.24, U = 3.0, p <0.001) than for EG1 teachers:
1 / The level of development of the cognitive
component is quite high in CG teachers (Mx = 128.8 vs
6.28), U = 9.0, r <0.001.
Table 6.
Level of development of abnormality in teachers with different performance indicators before working
with gifted children in CG and EG1
Group teachers
Level of development of abnormality in teachers with different performance
indicators before working with gifted children in CG a nd EG1
Mx SKO Sv
Teachers who succeed 34,85 3,20 9,18
Before training 69,12 15,47 22,38

Figure 5. Level of development of abnormality in teachers with different performance indicators (with points)
before working with gifted children in CG and EG1

2 / The teacher's ability to plan his / her own activities and the level of 'technological component' is twice as
high in CG teachers (Mx = 13.5 and 6.16 and 13.95 and 6.12), U = 3.0, r <0.001, U = 4.0, r <0.001.
3 / Significant differences were noted in the “Activity orientation” and the “motivational -personal component
development level” (Mx = 14.05 and 11.56), U = 163.0, p <0.001.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Teachers who
succeed
Teachers who
cannot succeed
37,85
33,08
Level of development of creative
activity of teachers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Teachers who
succeed
Teachers who
cannot
succeed
34,85
69,12
Level of development
of abnormality in…

18 American Scientific Journal № ( 33 ) / 20 20
Table 7.
Results of development of components of preparation and professional development of teachers in the
group of teachers who succeeded with gifted children (points)
№ Components of
preparation Teachers who succeed Before training
1. Cognitive 12,8 1,96 15,33 6,28 2,46 39,14
2. Motivational -
personal 14,05 1,15 8,16 11,56 2,2 19,16
3. Operation 1 13,5 1,24 9,15 6,16 2,59 42,05
4. Operation 2 13,95 1,15 8,21 6,12 2,53 41,32
5. General level 54,3 3,1 5,7 30,24 6,79 22,44
Note: 1 cognitive; 2 -motivated -personal; 3.1 - operation 1 - focusing on the development of gifted children; 3.2
operation 2 - organization of activities to promote the development of research approach in gifted children; 4 - The
overall level of training.

Figure 6. Training of teachers who succeeded with gifted children and the results of development of teachers'
pre -training qualification levels (points)

All personality traits of CG teachers are
complementary to each other, including the
motivational -personal component of preparation. The
quantity of 14 -point is included in the structure of that
component for teachers in the CG. The EG1 did not
reveal a structural level of correlation (0 points) in the
motivational -personal structure of teacher preparation
components.
Struc tural analysis of the components of readiness
in teachers 'work with gifted children in CG revealed
the following differences: All components of CG
teachers' psychological training are closely intertwined.
There is a weak positive link in the teacher's abi lity to
plan his / her own activities, which is focused on the
development of gifted children, including the planning
of teachers' personal abilities.
In our opinion, they promote the effectiveness of
teacher training with gifted children. In the EG1
teach ers' structure of the components of psychological
readiness and the work with gifted children, on the
contrary, rigidity is at a high level, which again
confirms the lack of flexibility in teachers. Personal
qualities and professional skills are inextricab ly linked
to the structure of teachers' psychological training in
CG.
Qualifications and skills of EG1 teachers are
available separately as an independent structural unit.
This means that the quality and skills of the teachers in
EG1 are reflected in the p edagogical activities
separately, affecting the effectiveness of teachers' work
with gifted children. In short, in the course of
comparative analysis we have come to the following
conclusions:
1 / Division of personality traits: individual
dimension of ref lexivity, creative activity, internship,
abnormality, and motivation of affiliation in
motivational -personal components of teacher’s
training. This legitimacy was also found to have an
impact on the effectiveness of teachers' work with
gifted children in t he learning process.
2 / It has been proven that the level of motivation -
personal components of psychological training:
reflexivity, creative activity, affiliate motivation, and
communication need are significantly higher in CG
teachers than in EG1 teachers. In EG1 teachers,
personal orientation is somewhat extreme. The level of
abnormality of teachers with low success rates is higher
than those of teachers who succeeded in working with
gifted children. In short, the motivation -personal
component of teachers' psychological training in both
CG and EG1 differs in terms of all quality indicators.
3 / Teachers' work with gifted children has varying
degrees of success and is unique in terms of their level
of integration. The difference here is that it is p ossible
to achieve personal development through the
development of advanced educational technologies by
focusing on the development of specific professional
skills. This means that teachers need to make changes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16 12,8
14,05 13,5 13,95
2,4 4,4
1,8 2,8
Teachers who succeed Before training

American Scientific Journal № ( 33) / 20 20 19

in the structure of psychological work with g ifted
children in an integrated manner so that they can lead
to success in work with gifted children.
The purpose of the training course for gifted
children to develop their psychology work is to increase
their subjectivity by focusing their attention. The
course was organized based on previous training and
feedback from teachers.
A questionnaire survey was conducted with the
teachers on “Assessment of Training Course
Provision”. Consider the results of our survey
responses after a week -long training course :
1/86% of teachers who have passed the training
have assessed its relevance and said it is now very
important for schools. 44% of teachers felt that the
training touches on the most important issues of their
work so that they do not have to hurry to apply
knowledge and skills during training;
2/71% of teachers said they would like to learn
ways of working with gifted children. 29% of the
participants highly appreciated the new course based on
new pedagogical and psychological tasks, as well as the
possibil ities of using certain forms of training and
technology in new courses;
3/75% of teachers stated that the methods we offer
for gifted children are very effective. 25% of them
believe that the methods of organizing work with gifted
children are systematic, and only teachers with the
highest success can do this work.
Thus, the results of an empirical study of teacher
training in psychosocial work related to different levels
of success and training for gifted children, as well as
the high level of psychosocial training enabled us to
identify the profile of teachers, as well as the practical
orientation of the created training course.

List of literature
1. B əylərov E.B. İstedadlı uşaqların psixoloji
təminatı, “Aspoliqraf”, 2008, 300 s.
2. B əylərov E.B. Uşaqlard a istedadın
mü əyy ənləşdirilm əsi v ə inkişaf etdirilm əsi.
3. İstedadın işçi konsepsiyası. Bakı, “ T əhsil”,
2008,224 s.
4. Əlizad ə Ə.Ə. İstedadlı uşaqlar. Psixopedaqoji
məsələlər.B.:ADPU, 2005,352 s.
5. Əliyev B.H., B əylərov E.B. İstedadlı uşaqlar
üçün diferensiallaşmış t əlim, Psixologiya jurnalı, 2009,
№4, s.3 -10
6. Əliyeva S.B. İstedadlı şagirdl ərlə mü əllimin
işinin xüsusiyy ətləri //Pedaqoji Universitet X əbərləri.
2012, №3, s 285 -288.
7. İstedadın psixoloji diaqnostikası. Metodikalar
toplusu. Astana, “ Darın”, 2006,150s.
8. Антонова И.Г. Одаренные дети и
особенности педагогической работы с ними / И. Г.
Антонова// Одаренный ребенок. - 2011. № 1. С. 46 -
51.
9. Андреева С.Н. Динамика личностных
подструктур как показателей психологической
готовности будущих у чителей к педагогической
деятель - ности. Автореф. дис. канд. психол. наук. -
Казань, 2005.
10. Бикбулатов, Р.Р. К вопросу о
формировании готовности педагога к
профессиональной деятельности с одаренными
детьми / Р.Р.Бикбулатов, 11. Иванов В.Г.,
Г.Р.Иксанова//Казанский педагогический журнал,
2014, №1 (102), С.53
11. Глуханюк Н.С.Психология
профессионализации педагога. /Н.С.Глуханюк
Екатеринбург. : 2000, 219 с.
12. Злобина А.Т. Готовность учителя к работе
с одаренными детьми / А.Т. Злобина // Одар.
ребенок. 2011. № 6. С. 141 -143.
13. Моляко В.А. Проблемы психологии
творчества и разработка подхода к изучению
одарённости. //Одарённый ребёнок. 2004, №3. С. 5
- 13.
14. Морозова Т.В. Диагностика успешности
учителя: Сборник методических материалов для
директоров и заместителей директоров учебных
заведений, руководителей школ. - М. Центр
«Педагогический поиск», 2003. 160 с.
15. Панфилов А.Подготовка учителя к работе с
одаренными детьми /А. Панфилов // Педагогика.
2004. №2. с.99 -101.
16. Пискарева, И.Е. Формирование готовности
будущих учителей к иннова - ционной деятельности
Текст.: дис.канд. пед. наук. Кострома, 2000, 150 с.
17. Поваренков, Ю.П. Проблемы психологии
профессионального становления личности Текст. /
Ю. П. Поваренк ов. Ярославль: Канцлер, 2008, 400
с.
18. Сарсенбаева, Б.И. Психологическая
подготовка будущих учителей к про -
фессиональной деятельности Текст. / Б.И.
Сарсенбаева // Педагогика. 2005, №2.С. 47 -54.
19. Ситник, А.П. Методическая помощь
молодому учителю в пери од его
профессионального становления Текст.:
Методические рекомендации / А.П. Ситник, Л.В.
Маслова. М.: АПК и ППРО, 2005, 52 с.
20. Францева, E.H. Психологическая
готовность к инновациям в профессио - нально -
педагогической деятельности у будущих учителей
Те кст.: дис. канд. псих. наук. Армавир, 2003, 153 с.
21. Яковина А.В. Модель готовности учителя к
работе с одаренными учени - ками // Одаренный
ребенок. 2011, № 4, с.20 -28
22. Babbie, E. The practice of social Research
(13 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cross, T.L.
(2009). Social and emotional development of gifted
children: Straight talk. Gifted Child Today, 2012,
32(2), 40
23. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. Three
approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Heal th Research , 15(9), 2005 , 1277 -1288.