An Exploratory Study of Teachers’ Perceptions of Giftedness and Talent among Students in Bahraini Primary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is no unanimity on how we define and assess giftedness and talent among students, identifying and educating gifted students in schools remain elusive. Despite criticisms leveled against teachers" understanding of giftedness, teachers" perceptions of giftedness and talent among students cannot be ignored. In the quest to gain insight into current practice in Bahrain; this study explored Bahraini teachers" perceptions of giftedness and talent among children in primary schools. Using a Likert type questionnaire, the study sampled data from 80 (male and female) Bahraini primary school teachers. The study revealed that Bahraini teachers viewed giftedness as essentially academic excellence. The study also revealed gaps in teachers" understanding of theory and practice in gifted education. In view of these findings, the study recommended a complete review of staff development programs and the preparation of pre-service teachers on understanding and educating highly able students in Bahrain schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".