Should we continue to use the term “giftedness”?

Q2 Social Sciences
H. David
{"title":"Should we continue to use the term “giftedness”?","authors":"H. David","doi":"10.21505/ajge.2023.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For many years there has been ongoing, lively debate about the use of the term \"gifted\" when referring to able, talented, and creative students, or students who have the potential to achieve at a high level. Pro-giftedness supporters who use the term appear to lean on the fact that the term \"gifted\" has been successfully used for many decades, and no other better-accepted term exists or has been suggested as a replacement. The anti-giftedness researchers, psychologists and educators point to the implicit inequity of \"giftedness\", and their belief that when some children and adolescents are labelled as \"gifted\", others might feel unable, potentially unsuccessful, and even compartmentalized. This article intends to summarize the main perspectives and determine for the pro-giftedness view.","PeriodicalId":38285,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Gifted Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Gifted Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2023.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For many years there has been ongoing, lively debate about the use of the term "gifted" when referring to able, talented, and creative students, or students who have the potential to achieve at a high level. Pro-giftedness supporters who use the term appear to lean on the fact that the term "gifted" has been successfully used for many decades, and no other better-accepted term exists or has been suggested as a replacement. The anti-giftedness researchers, psychologists and educators point to the implicit inequity of "giftedness", and their belief that when some children and adolescents are labelled as "gifted", others might feel unable, potentially unsuccessful, and even compartmentalized. This article intends to summarize the main perspectives and determine for the pro-giftedness view.
我们应该继续使用“天赋”这个词吗?
多年来,关于“天才”一词在指有能力、有才华、有创造力的学生或有潜力达到高水平的学生时的使用,一直存在着激烈的争论。使用“天赋”一词的支持者似乎依赖于这样一个事实,即“天赋”一词已经成功使用了几十年,没有其他更被接受的术语存在或被建议作为替代。反天赋的研究者、心理学家和教育家指出了“天赋”隐含的不平等,他们认为,当一些儿童和青少年被贴上“天赋”的标签时,其他儿童和青少年可能会感到无能、潜在的不成功,甚至被隔离。本文旨在总结主要观点,并确定亲天赋观点。
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
Australasian Journal of Gifted Education
Australasian Journal of Gifted Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信