Identification and Education of Students with Gifts and Talents Based on the Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a compelling call for a broader and more individualized view talent development. A couple of acronyms may not be familiar to all readers INCO and SES and may deserve a footnote or spelled out in the text.
Author Response
Thank you for the review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this work.
The article is about the concept of giftedness in education for students' talent development. While the topic is interesting, I have identified several issues which don't make this article suitable for publication at a high profile journal such as "education sciences".
The abstract doesn't describe the purpose of the paper or the methodology followed to achieve this purpose.
The study seems to be a review of the literature which is not systematic nor a meta-analysis. There is no methodology section and it is not clear to me how the cited resources have been identified and selected.
I am not sure either how the sub-sections emerged in this paper and the role of bold fonts in some sentences.
Finally, the conclusions section seems more like a summary and less like a reflective piece of work, highlighting implications, limitations and proposals for future research, based on the literature review conducted.
Author Response
Thank you for the constructive feedback.
- The article is about the concept of giftedness in education for students' talent development. While the topic is interesting, I have identified several issues which don't make this article suitable for publication at a high profile journal such as "education sciences".
- The abstract doesn't describe the purpose of the paper or the methodology followed to achieve this purpose.
The abstract is revised.
- The study seems to be a review of the literature which is not systematic nor a meta-analysis. There is no methodology section and it is not clear to me how the cited resources have been identified and selected.
The paper is a topical discussion on the Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness and its implications for the identification and education of gifted students. It is not intended to write a literature review of a problem.
- I am not sure either how the sub-sections emerged in this paper and the role of bold fonts in some sentences.
The sub-sections are the components of the FCG model. The bold fonts are the hypotheses of the sub-sections.
- Finally, the conclusions section seems more like a summary and less like a reflective piece of work, highlighting implications, limitations and proposals for future research, based on the literature review conducted.
The discussion is revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study presented an important topic that would interest the readership of this journal. Most research is needed, including the international audience. However, the paper is missing a level of detail that is needed to understand the results, impacts, and contributions of the research.
In general, improvements are needed in the following aspects:
1. Background – Expand a little more to highlight the research problem to highlight the study's need.
2. Methodology - expand a little more. Add analysis methods.
3. Contribution: It would be a good paper if it did look at the research impact on the community.
4. Findings: Should align with the study goal.
5. Recommendations: Expand a little more.
More specifics are summarized below, organized by sections.
Abstract
The abstract generally explains the study and its rationale clearly. Nevertheless,
1. The Methodology component of the abstract should specify the types of data analytics used.
2. The Recommendations entry could use some honing.
3. Note which aspects of the study would cross-apply to professional environments
Introduction
This research would acquire more relevance and impact if it noted some of the emerging trends. A concise introduction to enable the reader's understanding of the research problem.
1. Introduce the paper describing what the paper is about. Expand to emphasize the problem leading to a clear set of research questions and objectives the research addresses.
2. Give readers a one-line preview of the other sections of the paper.
Literature Review
Regarding the research base of the study, the literature review is not thorough. The findings of previous research are engaged thoughtfully and analyzed critically. The literature could use some updating. I suggest the authors to read the following papers to be further informed regarding the scope of the paper and to enhance the introduction and conclusions of the present study:
Abu Nasser, F.; AlAli, R. (2022). Do Faculty Members Apply the Standards for Developing Gifted Students at Universities? An Exploratory Study. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(6). 579-600. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12060043
AlAli, R., Wardat, Y., & Al-Qahtani, M. (2023). SWOM strategy and influence of its using on developing mathematical thinking skills and on metacognitive thinking among gifted tenth-grade students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(3), em2238.
Hamad, S.; Tairab, H.; Wardat, Y.; Rabbani, L.; AlArabi, K.; Yousif, M.; Abu-Al-Aish, A.; Stoica, G. Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM: Teacher perceptions and practice. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063594
AlAli, R. & Abunasser, F. (2022). Can the Leadership Capabilities of Gifted Students be Measured? Constructing a Scale According to Rasch Model. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 28(1).
Suggestions:
1. Include a few introductory lines to indicate what the review will cover, outlining the purpose and scope.
2. Consider summarizing the text based on the study purpose.
3. Focus more on the empirical studies' backgrounds.
4. Add more information to enable understanding of the authors' view.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for sending me a new version of the paper.
I haven't seen any substantial changes in the revised version, so I will leave my evaluation as it is.
