In Their Own Voice: Educational Perspectives From Intellectually Precocious Youth as Adults

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Gabriella D. Noreen, David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow
{"title":"In Their Own Voice: Educational Perspectives From Intellectually Precocious Youth as Adults","authors":"Gabriella D. Noreen, David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow","doi":"10.1177/00169862251339670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educational acceleration is well established as a best practice for meeting the learning needs of precocious youth. It occupies one region of a broader spectrum of interventions designed to align educational curricula with students’ learning readiness, namely, <jats:italic>appropriate developmental placement</jats:italic> . Despite over 100 years of robust longitudinal support, educational acceleration is not reliably implemented in practice or educational theorizing. This investigation extends this literature through a mixed-methods approach to the educational experiences and perspectives of intellectually precocious youths as adults. Study 1 examines the experiences and views of Gifted ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 1,279) and Highly Gifted ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 479) individuals in their mid-30s on homogeneous grouping for instruction. Study 2 constitutes a constructive replication of Study 1 involving an unobtrusive generalization probe administered to Profoundly Gifted participants ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 241) and Top STEM Doctoral Students ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 695) in their mid-20s. Study 2 focuses on participants’ high school likes and dislikes to determine whether they unobtrusively capture sentiments indicative of appropriate developmental placement in general and educational acceleration in particular. Collectively, participants appear to crave advanced and challenging educational material. Across cohorts and genders, a longitudinal examination of potential moderators revealed that these results did not covary with lifestyle/occupational outcomes at age 50. Findings align with Carroll’s Model of School Learning, Cronbach’s formulation of aptitude × treatment interactions, and modern measurement procedures. They support tailoring curricula to academic readiness for maximizing learning. They also highlight how contextual features embedded in educational settings beyond strictly academic material facilitate learning and psychological development.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251339670","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Educational acceleration is well established as a best practice for meeting the learning needs of precocious youth. It occupies one region of a broader spectrum of interventions designed to align educational curricula with students’ learning readiness, namely, appropriate developmental placement . Despite over 100 years of robust longitudinal support, educational acceleration is not reliably implemented in practice or educational theorizing. This investigation extends this literature through a mixed-methods approach to the educational experiences and perspectives of intellectually precocious youths as adults. Study 1 examines the experiences and views of Gifted ( N = 1,279) and Highly Gifted ( N = 479) individuals in their mid-30s on homogeneous grouping for instruction. Study 2 constitutes a constructive replication of Study 1 involving an unobtrusive generalization probe administered to Profoundly Gifted participants ( N = 241) and Top STEM Doctoral Students ( N = 695) in their mid-20s. Study 2 focuses on participants’ high school likes and dislikes to determine whether they unobtrusively capture sentiments indicative of appropriate developmental placement in general and educational acceleration in particular. Collectively, participants appear to crave advanced and challenging educational material. Across cohorts and genders, a longitudinal examination of potential moderators revealed that these results did not covary with lifestyle/occupational outcomes at age 50. Findings align with Carroll’s Model of School Learning, Cronbach’s formulation of aptitude × treatment interactions, and modern measurement procedures. They support tailoring curricula to academic readiness for maximizing learning. They also highlight how contextual features embedded in educational settings beyond strictly academic material facilitate learning and psychological development.
在他们自己的声音:从智力早熟的青少年作为成年人的教育视角
教育加速被公认为是满足早熟青少年学习需求的最佳做法。它占据了旨在使教育课程与学生学习准备相一致的更广泛干预措施的一个领域,即适当的发展性安置。尽管有超过100年的强大的纵向支持,但教育加速在实践或教育理论中并不可靠。本研究通过一种混合方法的方法来扩展这一文献,以智力早熟的青少年作为成年人的教育经历和观点。研究1考察了天才(N = 1279)和高天才(N = 479) 35岁左右的个体在同质分组教学中的经历和观点。研究2是对研究1的建设性复制,包括对深度天才参与者(N = 241)和20多岁的顶尖STEM博士生(N = 695)进行一个不引人注目的泛化探针。研究2侧重于参与者的高中喜好,以确定他们是否不显眼地捕捉到表明适当发展安置的情绪,特别是教育加速。总的来说,参与者似乎渴望高级和具有挑战性的教育材料。在不同的队列和性别中,对潜在调节因子的纵向检查显示,这些结果与50岁时的生活方式/职业结果没有协变。研究结果与卡罗尔的学校学习模型、克朗巴赫的能力倾向与治疗相互作用的公式以及现代测量程序相一致。他们支持定制课程,使学术准备最大化地学习。他们还强调,在严格的学术材料之外,教育环境中嵌入的情境特征如何促进学习和心理发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
29.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信