Gifted Child Quarterly最新文献_第8页

Response to Peters: Promising Practices and a Missing Piece 对彼得斯的回应:有前途的实践和缺失的部分

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037968

P. Olszewski-Kubilius, R. Subotnik

引用次数: 1

Journal Editors’ Role in Supporting Equity 期刊编辑在支持公平中的作用

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037708

M. Matthews, Jennifer H. Robins

引用次数: 1

Additional Challenges to Achieving Equity in Gifted and Talented Education 实现资优教育公平的其他挑战

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211039735

Matthew C. Makel

引用次数: 3

Achieving Equity in Gifted Education: Ideas and Issues 实现资优教育的公平:观点与问题

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211068551

F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson

{"title":"Achieving Equity in Gifted Education: Ideas and Issues","authors":"F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson","doi":"10.1177/00169862211068551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551","url":null,"abstract":"The disproportionality in the ethnic-racial and socioeconomic make-up of students in gifted and talented education (GATE) programs has been identified by many scholars as the most critical and the most intractable issue facing the field of gifted education (e.g., Grissom & Redding, 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu, 2017; Plucker & Peters, 2016; Worrell & Dixson, 2018). Considered a fundamental equity issue by many (e.g., Peters & Engerrand, 2016)—that is, an issue of fairness—there is a growing body of scholarship on what should be done (Ford, 1998; Grissom et al., 2019). However, despite the efforts of many researchers and educators (e.g., Horn, 2015; Lee et al., 2009), this disproportionality has not been remedied (Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019), and indeed, the problem is perceived as more urgent in the sociohistorical context of 2021, with the increased focus on civil rights and social justice. As academics, we put forward different theoretical frameworks and ideas to solve problems, we test competing hypotheses, and we engage in robust debates about the most appropriate solutions to problems. These research endeavors are systematic attempts to solve complex problems, such as the issue of disproportionality in gifted education. Given the ongoing concerns about this issue and in keeping with the scientific underpinnings of the field, the editors of Gifted Child Quarterly decided to devote a special issue to the topic of equity in gifted education. The goal of the special issue is to bring together ideas from across the field to better understand disproportionality in GATE in hopes of making progress on this pernicious issue. The format of the special issue includes a target article on equity within GATE, commentaries on the target article solicited from a wide variety of stakeholders, and a response to the commentaries by the author of the target article. The authors of this introduction were asked to serve as guest editors for the special issue. In choosing a scholar to write the target article, we considered the conceptual and empirical contributions of several individuals who regularly publish on equity within GATE. In addition, we also considered these individuals’ engagement with the extant empirical literature. After considering these and other factors, we invited Dr. Scott Peters to write the target article. We felt that Dr. Peters’ contributions to several theoretical frameworks on gifted education (i.e., advanced academics and excellence gaps; e.g., Peters et al., 2014; Plucker & Peters, 2016) as well as his conceptual and empirical research on multiple models of identification aimed at diversifying GATE (e.g., McBee et al., 2014; Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Peters, Rambo-Hernandez, et al., 2019) made him an excellent choice for the target article. Equity is a broad term that can have a different definition for different people. Within the GATE literature, there are many different definitions and perspectives on what equity is a","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"314 1","pages":"79 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80065334","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: 11

Analyzing Disproportionate Representation in Gifted Education: Identification Procedures, Proximal Causes, Distal Causes, and Theoretical Causes 资优教育中不成比例的代表性分析:鉴定程序、近因、远因及理论原因

IF 3.1 3区教育学

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-01-03 DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037943

Russell T Warne

引用次数: 3

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

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

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

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

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