Underrepresentation in Gifted Education Revisited: The Promise of Single-Group Summaries and Meta-Analytic QuantCrit

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Jemimah Young, J. Young
{"title":"Underrepresentation in Gifted Education Revisited: The Promise of Single-Group Summaries and Meta-Analytic QuantCrit","authors":"Jemimah Young, J. Young","doi":"10.1177/00169862211039731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many statistical measures are commonly used to document the persistence of inequity within gifted education (Young, Young, & Ford, 2017; Ford, 2013; Hodges et al., 2018; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). Thus, in response to the challenges presented by Peters (2021), we contend that an approach that considers critical race theory as a lens for the design, analysis, and interpretation of representation data in gifted education is necessary but remains elusive. In this commentary, we present an example of an alternative analysis (i.e., single-group summary). Borrowing from the work of Ford (2013) and Lamb et al. (2019), we examined Black student representation in gifted education meta-analytically using data from the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection to provide an example of the utility of single-group summaries. A single-group summary is described as the estimation of population parameters for a single group on a particular outcome. We aim to present a novel application of QuantCrit and meta-analytic thinking to support more informed and equitable decisions in gifted education. Using data from the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection database, we computed the relative difference in composition index (RDCI), the Equity Index (EI), and the Inequity Score (IS) in the current single-group summary.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":"136 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211039731","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: 2

Abstract

Many statistical measures are commonly used to document the persistence of inequity within gifted education (Young, Young, & Ford, 2017; Ford, 2013; Hodges et al., 2018; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). Thus, in response to the challenges presented by Peters (2021), we contend that an approach that considers critical race theory as a lens for the design, analysis, and interpretation of representation data in gifted education is necessary but remains elusive. In this commentary, we present an example of an alternative analysis (i.e., single-group summary). Borrowing from the work of Ford (2013) and Lamb et al. (2019), we examined Black student representation in gifted education meta-analytically using data from the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection to provide an example of the utility of single-group summaries. A single-group summary is described as the estimation of population parameters for a single group on a particular outcome. We aim to present a novel application of QuantCrit and meta-analytic thinking to support more informed and equitable decisions in gifted education. Using data from the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection database, we computed the relative difference in composition index (RDCI), the Equity Index (EI), and the Inequity Score (IS) in the current single-group summary.
资优教育的代表性不足:单组总结和元分析量化批评的前景
许多统计方法通常用于记录资优教育中持续存在的不平等(Young, Young, & Ford, 2017;福特,2013;Hodges等人,2018;Yoon & Gentry, 2009)。因此,为了回应彼得斯(2021)提出的挑战,我们认为,一种将批判种族理论作为设计、分析和解释天才教育中代表性数据的镜头的方法是必要的,但仍然难以捉摸。在这篇评论中,我们提出了一个替代分析的例子(即,单组总结)。借鉴Ford(2013)和Lamb等人(2019)的工作,我们使用民权数据收集办公室的数据进行元分析,研究了黑人学生在资优教育中的代表性,以提供单组总结的效用示例。单组汇总被描述为对某一特定结果的单组总体参数的估计。我们的目标是提出QuantCrit和元分析思维的新应用,以支持资优教育中更明智和公平的决策。使用来自民权数据收集办公室数据库的数据,我们计算了当前单组总结中构成指数(RDCI)、公平指数(EI)和不平等得分(IS)的相对差异。
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