pp 1–19 | Cite as

Gifted Students’ and Their Parents’ Perceptions of Decision-Making Processes: A Turkish Case

  • Evren Ersoy
  • Uzeyir Ogurlu
  • Hasan AydinEmail author


The purpose of this study was to explore the opinions of gifted students and their parents on decision-making processes in Turkey. This study employed a qualitative case study design. Data were collected from ten gifted students and their parents through individual and focus group interviews. The findings indicated that gifted children defined decision making as taking responsibility for an issue, thinking about the positive and negative aspects, reaching a conclusion without a rush by using of own experiences. Before making a decision, gifted children stated that they contemplated the results they would face, to what extent they would be happy and whom this decision would affect. They sought help from their families, then their teachers and friends while reaching a decision. After making a decision, they tried to correct it if they were not satisfied with the decision. Parents emphasized that they respected their children’s choices and supported them during this process so that they could make better decisions in the future. The parents added that their children should benefit from their experiences in making crucial decisions.


Gifted students Decision making Case study Parents Turkey 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All local ethical committee permissions were successful received in order to carry out this research.


  1. Adair, J. E. (2007). Decision making and problem solving strategies (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Addai-Mununkum, R. (2018). Teacher identity, positionality and (mis) representation of religion in the ghanaian school contexts: Insider/outsider case study perspectives. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 40–59.Google Scholar
  3. Avşaroğlu, S., & Ömer, Ü. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinin karar vermede özsaygı, karar verme ve stresle başa çıkma stillerinin benlik saygısı ve bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Self-esteem, decision-making and coping styles of university students in decision making in terms of self-esteem and some variables]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 85–100.Google Scholar
  4. Aydin, H., & Kaya, Y. (2017). Educational needs and barriers for Syrian refugee students in Turkey: A qualitative case study. Intercultural Education, 28(5), 456–473. Scholar
  5. Ball, C., Mann, L., & Stamm, C. (1994). Decision-making abilities of intellectually gifted and non-gifted children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  6. Benito, Y. (2000). Metacognitive ability and cognitive strategies to solve maths and transformation problems. Gifted Education International, 14(2), 151–159.Google Scholar
  7. Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). Autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability. Greeley: Alps Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Beyth-Marom, R., Fischhoff, B., Quadrel, M. J., & Furby, L. (1991). Teaching decision making to adolescents: A critical review. In J. Baron & R. V. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision making to adolescents (pp. 19–59). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. Bratter, T. E. (2006). When psychotherapy becomes a war: Working with gifted, alienated, angry adolescents who engage in self-destructive and dangerous behavior. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 26(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J. E., & Mann, L. (1991). Decision-making competence and self-esteem: A comparison of parents and adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 14(4), 363–371.Google Scholar
  12. Carney, C., & Wells, C. (1995). Discover the career within you. New York: Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Cavell, T. A. (2000). Working with parents of aggressive children: A practitioner’s guide. American Psychological Association, 33(5), 325–335.Google Scholar
  14. Chung, D., Yun, K., Kim, J. H., Jang, B., & Jeong, J. (2011). Different gain/loss sensitivity and social adaptation ability in gifted adolescents during a public goods game. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e17044. Scholar
  15. Clark, B. (2012). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at home (8th ed.). London: Pearson Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. Deveci, F. (2011). Ergenlerde karar verme stilleri ile algılanan sosyal destek düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Examining the relationship between perceived social support levels and adolescents] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  19. Eldeleklioglu, J. (1996). Karar stratejileri ile ana baba tutumları arasındaki ilişki [Relationship between decision strategies and parental attitudes] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.Google Scholar
  20. Emir, S., & Acar, S. (2007). Zeka-liderlik ilişkisi: Ustun zekâlı olan ve olmayan öğrencilerin liderlik becerilerinin karşılaştırılması [Intelligence-leadership relationship: Comparison of leadership skills of students with and without proficiency]. Hasan Âli Yucel Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 4(2), 189–201.Google Scholar
  21. Ersoy, E., & Deniz, M. E. (2016a). Psychometric properties of the gifted students’ coping with anger and decision making skills scale. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 128.Google Scholar
  22. Ersoy, E., & Deniz, M. E. (2016b). Ustun yetenekli cocuklarin ofkeyle basa cikma ve karar verme becerilerinin bazi degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi. İlkogretim Online, 15(3), 1030.Google Scholar
  23. Ersoy, E., & Uysal, R. (2018). Opinions of school psychological counselors on giftedness and gifted students’ education. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 120–142.Google Scholar
  24. Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Decision making: Nonrational theories. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5(1), 3304–3309.Google Scholar
  25. Gorodetsky, M., & Klavir, R. (2003). What can we learn from how gifted/average pupils describe their processes of problem solving? Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 305–325.Google Scholar
  26. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587–2607.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, N., & Quinn, R. (2014). Parental involvement at the high school level: Parents’ perspectives. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, R. (2012). Introduction to decision making. VirtualSalt. Retrieved from
  29. Howse, R. B., Best, D. L., & Stone, E. R. (2003). Children’s decision making: The effects of training, reinforcement, and memory aids. Cognitive Development, 18(2), 247–268.Google Scholar
  30. Jausovec, N. (1997). Differences in EEG alpha activity between gifted and non-identified individuals: Insights into problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  31. Kahraman, S., & Bulut-Pedük, Ş. (2014). 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıf üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin mükemmeliyetçilik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of perfectionism levels of gifted students of 6th, 7th and 8th Grade]. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
  32. Kanevsky, L. S. (1992). The learning game. In P. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 204–241). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  33. Kayaalp, A. (2016). The impact of “temporal personality” on individuals’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management and Information Science, 4(2), 79–86.Google Scholar
  34. Kesici, Ş. (2002). Üniversite öğrencilerinin karar verme stratejilerinin psikolojik ihtiyaç örüntüleri ve özlük niteliklerine göre karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi [Comparative analysis of decision making strategies of university students based on psychological needs patterns and personal characteristics] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.Google Scholar
  35. Kuzgun, Y. (2000). Vocational counseling. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131–137.Google Scholar
  37. Nauta, N., Ronner, S., & Groeneveld, B. (2009). The importance of decision making: A gifted case report. Gifted and Talented International, 24(2), 121–130.Google Scholar
  38. Ogurlu, U., & Sevim, M. N. (2017). The opinions of gifted students about leadership training. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 4(2), 41–52.Google Scholar
  39. Özbay, Y. (2013). Üstün yetenekli çocuklar ve aileleri [Gifted children and their families]. Ankara: Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı.Google Scholar
  40. Parcon, P. (2006). Develop your decision making skills. Detroit, MI: Lotus Press.Google Scholar
  41. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th Edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Regenwetter, M., Grofman, B., Popova, A., Messner, W., Davis-Stober, C. P., & Cavagnaro, D. R. (2009). Behavioural social choice: A status report. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 364(1518), 833–843. Scholar
  43. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Sak, U. (2010a). Üstün zekalılar: özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri [Giftedness: Characteristics, diagnoses, trainings]. Ankara: Maya Akademi.Google Scholar
  45. Sak, U. (2010b). International perspectives on education for gifted students: Turkey. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (pp. 432–441). Austin, TX: PRO-Ed Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Schlichter, C. L. (1981). Decision making: An instructional strategy for the rural gifted student. University of Alabama. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 257.Google Scholar
  47. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–148). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3–28). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1977). The new science of management decision (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513.Google Scholar
  51. Sisk, D. A., & Shallcross, D. J. (1986). Leadership: Making things happen. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.Google Scholar
  52. Sovet, L., & Metz, A. J. (2014). Parenting styles and career decision-making among French and Korean adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 345–355.Google Scholar
  53. Sowa, C. J., McIntire, J., May, K. M., & Bland, L. (1994). Social and emotional adjustment themes across gifted children. Roeper Review, 17(2), 95–98.Google Scholar
  54. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, practice. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  57. Yavuzer, H. (2011). Ana-baba ve çocuk [Parents and children]. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  58. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9th edn) [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (9th edn)]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  59. Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-WhitewaterWhitewaterUSA
  3. 3.Florida Gulf Coast UniversityFort MyersUSA

Personalised recommendations