Gifted Child Quarterly最新文献_第7页

Identify Transformational, Not Just Transactional Giftedness! 识别转型天赋，而不仅仅是交易天赋!

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037950

R. Sternberg

引用次数: 3

Asset-Based Decision Making to Address Inequity in Gifted Education Services 解决资优教育服务不公平的资产决策

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211042910

K. Lamb, J. Jolly, J. Lakin

{"title":"Asset-Based Decision Making to Address Inequity in Gifted Education Services","authors":"K. Lamb, J. Jolly, J. Lakin","doi":"10.1177/00169862211042910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211042910","url":null,"abstract":"The field of gifted education has faced issues of equity for decades. Peters (2021) highlights a variety of systemic reasons traditional gifted identification processes may fail to equitably identify traditionally underrepresented students; however, at the core of Peter’s argument is a defense of the gifted and talented label. Common criticisms of gifted education include that it promotes fixed labels attached to opaque instructional practices or services that provide greater advantages to a privileged few (Grissom et al., 2019). The gifted label also attracts stereotypes and misconceptions relative to student behaviors and services. For instance, the label perpetuates the misconception that most students are gifted across academic domains rather than having specific areas of strengths and weaknesses (Lohman et al., 2008). As a result, gifted education services rarely meet the unique needs of the students being served, but rather provide a onesize-fits-all service—the antithesis of a specialized service. Dixson et al. (2021) proposed an approach to gifted education focused on maximizing learning, which involves short-term, malleable decisions using assessment data to immediately inform instruction rather than long-term labels. Essentially, these are existing strategies, primarily used in special education, to monitor progress with data-based decision making designed to support students academically. Three key services include (a) diagnostic labels only as needed, (b) push-in services from specialists ensuring students get instruction aligned with their needs, and (c) responsive services, such as Response to Intervention (RtI), that allow teachers to identify needs and modify instruction more effectively for a larger pool of (potentially or currently) highachieving students.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"28 1","pages":"113 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77823751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Disentangling Inequity in Gifted Education: The Need for Nuance in Racial/Ethnic Categories, Socioeconomic Status, and Geography 拆解天才教育中的不平等:需要种族/民族类别、社会经济地位和地理上的细微差别

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211040533

Jaret Hodges, Rachel U. Mun, Anne N. Rinn

{"title":"Disentangling Inequity in Gifted Education: The Need for Nuance in Racial/Ethnic Categories, Socioeconomic Status, and Geography","authors":"Jaret Hodges, Rachel U. Mun, Anne N. Rinn","doi":"10.1177/00169862211040533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040533","url":null,"abstract":"There is consensus among scholars in gifted education on the need to address educational equity for marginalized groups based on racial/ethnic categories (Peters et al., 2019), socioeconomic status (Hamilton et al., 2018), and geography (Hodges, 2018). Marginalization exists in terms of identification for services (Mun et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2019) and the extent of those services (Hodges, 2018). Less clear, however, are the complexities of the subgroups who comprise those marginalized groups. Understanding the nuances of racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic designations is a critical component of closing gaps in equity within K-12 gifted and talented services. In the proposed solutions to address these equity gaps outlined by Peters (2021), we argue that success is more likely if these nuances are considered. Aggregating students into broad racial/ethnic categorizations occurs at the federal and state level, affecting how students are labeled in schools. The U.S. Department of Education (2008) recognizes seven racial/ethnic categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and two or more races. Within those seven categories, though, is an immense amount of variation and nuance with differing levels of economic (e.g., money, property), social (e.g., social networks, connections), and cultural (e.g., education, knowledge, training) capital (Marcucci, 2020). For example, the categorization American Indian or Alaska Native represents not a single monolithic culture but a plethora of diverse peoples with distinct cultures and languages. The categorization Black represents not only individuals who are descendants of African slaves in the United States. but also a diverse group of immigrants from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Mwangi, 2014). Peters (2021) briefly describes this understanding in his description of the Hmong community in rural Wisconsin. Students who are Asian are considered well represented in gifted education programs (Peters et al., 2019), but it is unlikely that representation extends to all groups of students who would be classified as Asian (e.g., the Hmong). For example, a scholar would likely be met with skepticism for stating that gifted identification for children of Burmese refugees is the same as that for children of highly educated East Asian immigrants. Yet stating that students who are Asian are well represented is common within the field of gifted education (Peters et al., 2019). What Peters (2021) does not discuss is the nuance within socioeconomic status, geography, or their intersection with race/ethnicity. Like the nuanced differences within racial/ ethnic categories, children within differing socioeconomic status and geographic groups vary as well. The field would be well served to consider how this variability is related to gaps in equity in gifted education. Socioeconomic status groups are not monolith","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"116 1","pages":"154 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79263286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Should it Matter Who Sits Next to Me? 谁坐在我旁边重要吗?

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037948

Nancy B. Hertzog

引用次数: 1

Challenges and Efforts of Achieving Equity Beyond Gifted Education: Implications From Mathematics Education 超越资优教育实现公平的挑战与努力:来自数学教育的启示

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037951

Hyeseong Lee, Sheunghyun Yeo, Jaepil Han

引用次数: 4

Peter Parker Principle: From White Privilege to Gifted Critical Discourse 彼得·帕克原则:从白人特权到天才批评话语

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037704

Angela M. Novak

引用次数: 2

Equity Through the Participation of Twice-Exceptional Students in Gifted Programming 优等生参与资优项目的公平性

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037717

David P. Walrod

引用次数: 3

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

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037945

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":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037945","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 possibl","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"23 1","pages":"149 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78132179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

The Inherent Racism of (Gifted) Education (天赋)教育的内在种族主义

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037705

Keishana L. Barnes

引用次数: 2

Equity, Not Just Equality: How Equality of Educational Outcome Policies Could Help Narrow Excellence and Identification Gaps 公平，而不仅仅是平等:教育成果政策的平等如何有助于缩小卓越和识别差距

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037944

D. Long

引用次数: 2