Equity in Gifted Education: The Importance of Definitions and a Focus on Underachieving Gifted Students

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
J. Y. Jung, Rahmi Luke Jackson, G. Townend, M. Mcgregor
{"title":"Equity in Gifted Education: The Importance of Definitions and a Focus on Underachieving Gifted Students","authors":"J. Y. Jung, Rahmi Luke Jackson, G. Townend, M. Mcgregor","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students in public school gifted and talented programs is an unresolved issue for school systems and the field of gifted education around the world. Peters (2021) has provided a thoughtful, well-researched, and defensible overview on the topic, that outlines possible reasons for the underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students, along with multiple useful proposals for action in the future. In this commentary, two additional courses of action are described that may complement the proposals of Peters (2021). Arguably, one qualifies as “low-hanging fruit” that may be actionable immediately by school systems, while the second may require effort and action over the longer term. The first proposal relates to an issue that was not covered by Peters (2021)—a reexamination of the definitions of giftedness and talent that guide our identification processes and educational interventions. Although multiple different definitions of giftedness and talent are simultaneously being used in different parts of the world, most do not appear to be very inclusive of under-represented subgroups of gifted students. Therefore, one approach to address the inequity in gifted education may be to go beyond Peters’ (2021) suggestion of “reframing” what it means to be gifted, by the adoption of alternative definitions of giftedness that better and more explicitly acknowledge the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of disadvantaged gifted students. One such definition is the definition proposed by Gagné (2009, 2013), which makes a clear distinction between high level ability (i.e., giftedness) and high level achievement (i.e., talent), explicitly acknowledges possible environmental and intrapersonal factors (i.e., environmental and intrapersonal catalysts) that may positively or negatively influence the development of both ability and achievement, and gives recognition and status to highly able individuals who do not necessarily translate their abilities into corresponding achievements. Essentially, Gagné recognizes the phenomenon of underachievement, which is commonly understood to be a substantial discrepancy between one’s level of ability and achievement. Although the definitions and models proposed by other scholars acknowledge both ability (e.g., Renzulli, 1988) and environmental factors in the development of giftedness or talent (e.g., Tannenbaum, 2003), they do not go as far as Gagné (2009, 2013). Some examples of the specificity and elaboration given to ability and environmental factors by Gagné (2009, 2013) include the acknowledgment of maturation and learning processes that lead to the development of abilities, the role of socioeconomic status, the presence/absence of caregivers, the influence of significant others in one’s social environment, access to learning resources, and the availability of educational interventions. The adoption of definitions of giftedness and talent that clearly acknowledge possible positive and negative life experiences (e.g., poverty/wealth, childhood experiences, and parental expenditure on education), and therefore the possible differences in access to and opportunity for education-related experiences, may be conducive to fairer and more equitable identification and programming decisions for all gifted students. Related to Gagné’s (2009, 2013) definitions of giftedness and talent, the second proposed addition to Peters’ (2021) suggested courses of action is the active promotion of the identification of gifted underachievers, and the provision of appropriate interventions for gifted underachievers. In response to Peters’ (2021) observation that many efforts that have been made to address inequity may have focused on the “wrong issues,” this proposal suggests that there may be value in introducing an additional focus on the identification of, and support for, the large numbers of gifted students who qualify as underachievers (Morisano & Shore, 2010). Many gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those associated with low socioeconomic status, 1037945 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211037945Gifted Child QuarterlyJung et al. article-commentary2021","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"23 1","pages":"149 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037945","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: 5

Abstract

The underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students in public school gifted and talented programs is an unresolved issue for school systems and the field of gifted education around the world. Peters (2021) has provided a thoughtful, well-researched, and defensible overview on the topic, that outlines possible reasons for the underrepresentation of disadvantaged gifted students, along with multiple useful proposals for action in the future. In this commentary, two additional courses of action are described that may complement the proposals of Peters (2021). Arguably, one qualifies as “low-hanging fruit” that may be actionable immediately by school systems, while the second may require effort and action over the longer term. The first proposal relates to an issue that was not covered by Peters (2021)—a reexamination of the definitions of giftedness and talent that guide our identification processes and educational interventions. Although multiple different definitions of giftedness and talent are simultaneously being used in different parts of the world, most do not appear to be very inclusive of under-represented subgroups of gifted students. Therefore, one approach to address the inequity in gifted education may be to go beyond Peters’ (2021) suggestion of “reframing” what it means to be gifted, by the adoption of alternative definitions of giftedness that better and more explicitly acknowledge the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of disadvantaged gifted students. One such definition is the definition proposed by Gagné (2009, 2013), which makes a clear distinction between high level ability (i.e., giftedness) and high level achievement (i.e., talent), explicitly acknowledges possible environmental and intrapersonal factors (i.e., environmental and intrapersonal catalysts) that may positively or negatively influence the development of both ability and achievement, and gives recognition and status to highly able individuals who do not necessarily translate their abilities into corresponding achievements. Essentially, Gagné recognizes the phenomenon of underachievement, which is commonly understood to be a substantial discrepancy between one’s level of ability and achievement. Although the definitions and models proposed by other scholars acknowledge both ability (e.g., Renzulli, 1988) and environmental factors in the development of giftedness or talent (e.g., Tannenbaum, 2003), they do not go as far as Gagné (2009, 2013). Some examples of the specificity and elaboration given to ability and environmental factors by Gagné (2009, 2013) include the acknowledgment of maturation and learning processes that lead to the development of abilities, the role of socioeconomic status, the presence/absence of caregivers, the influence of significant others in one’s social environment, access to learning resources, and the availability of educational interventions. The adoption of definitions of giftedness and talent that clearly acknowledge possible positive and negative life experiences (e.g., poverty/wealth, childhood experiences, and parental expenditure on education), and therefore the possible differences in access to and opportunity for education-related experiences, may be conducive to fairer and more equitable identification and programming decisions for all gifted students. Related to Gagné’s (2009, 2013) definitions of giftedness and talent, the second proposed addition to Peters’ (2021) suggested courses of action is the active promotion of the identification of gifted underachievers, and the provision of appropriate interventions for gifted underachievers. In response to Peters’ (2021) observation that many efforts that have been made to address inequity may have focused on the “wrong issues,” this proposal suggests that there may be value in introducing an additional focus on the identification of, and support for, the large numbers of gifted students who qualify as underachievers (Morisano & Shore, 2010). Many gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those associated with low socioeconomic status, 1037945 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211037945Gifted Child QuarterlyJung et al. article-commentary2021
资优教育中的公平:定义的重要性和对表现不佳的资优学生的关注
在公立学校的资优项目中,弱势资优学生的代表性不足是学校系统和世界各地资优教育领域尚未解决的问题。Peters(2021)对这一主题进行了深思熟虑、研究充分、站得住脚的概述,概述了弱势资优学生代表性不足的可能原因,并为未来的行动提出了多项有用的建议。在这篇评论中,描述了两个额外的行动方案,可以补充彼得斯(2021)的建议。可以说,一种是“唾手可得的果实”,学校系统可以立即采取行动,而第二种可能需要长期的努力和行动。第一个建议涉及彼得斯(2021)没有涉及的问题——重新审视指导我们识别过程和教育干预的天赋和才能的定义。尽管在世界不同地区同时使用了多种不同的天赋和才能定义,但大多数定义似乎并不包括代表性不足的天才学生群体。因此,解决资优教育不平等的一种方法可能是超越彼得斯(2021)提出的“重新定义”资优意味着什么,通过采用对资优的替代定义,更好、更明确地承认弱势资优学生的特征、环境和需求。其中一个定义是gagn(2009, 2013)提出的定义,它明确区分了高水平能力(即天赋)和高水平成就(即才能),明确承认可能的环境和个人因素(即环境和个人催化剂),这些因素可能对能力和成就的发展产生积极或消极的影响。并给予那些不一定能将其能力转化为相应成就的高度有能力的个人认可和地位。从本质上讲,gagn认识到了成就不足的现象,这通常被理解为一个人的能力水平与成就之间的巨大差距。虽然其他学者提出的定义和模型都承认能力(例如,Renzulli, 1988)和环境因素在天赋或才能的发展中(例如,Tannenbaum, 2003),但他们没有像gagn(2009, 2013)那样深入。gagn(2009、2013)对能力和环境因素的具体阐述包括:承认导致能力发展的成熟和学习过程、社会经济地位的作用、照顾者的存在/不存在、重要他人在社会环境中的影响、学习资源的获取以及教育干预的可用性。采用明确承认可能的积极和消极的生活经历(例如,贫穷/财富、童年经历和父母教育支出)的天赋和才能定义,以及因此在获得与教育相关的经历和机会方面可能存在的差异,可能有助于更公平和更公平地识别和规划所有天才学生的决策。与gagn(2009年、2013年)对天赋和天赋的定义相关,彼得斯(2021年)提出的第二项补充建议是,积极促进对天才后进生的识别,并为天才后进生提供适当的干预措施。彼得斯(2021)观察到,许多为解决不平等所做的努力可能都集中在“错误的问题”上,为了回应这一观点,本提案表明,将更多的注意力放在识别和支持大量有资格成为表现不佳的天才学生上,可能是有价值的(Morisano & Shore, 2010)。许多来自弱势背景的资优学生,包括那些社会经济地位较低的学生,1037945 gcqxxx10.1177 /00169862211037945资优儿童季刊jung等人文章评论2021
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信