澳大利亚天才教育研究概况:1992-2013

Q3 Social Sciences
J. Jolly, A. Chessman
{"title":"澳大利亚天才教育研究概况:1992-2013","authors":"J. Jolly, A. Chessman","doi":"10.1080/15332276.2018.1522935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study seeks to investigate the body of literature generated in the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education from the establishment of the journal in 1992 until 2013, focusing on the research field in order to understand its research foci, the rigor of research generated, and how events in the Australian context can influence the type of research undertaken. This study was guided by four research questions (1) to what extent is research published in AJGE empirical?; (2) what proportions of the articles are quantitative, qualitative, or non-empirical?; (3) how does the empirical rigor compare over time?; and (4) to what extent has the 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into the Education of Gifted Children influenced the research foci? A database of AJGE articles was constructed, and an adapted version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to classify empirical studies. Results indicated that qualitative and quantitative research was equally undertaken; however, case studies and quantitative descriptive analysis were favored over other types of approaches. Empirical rigor varied over time, and few recommendations from the 2001Australian Senate Report were reflected in the research undertaken. There are a number of contextual explanations for the irregular presentation and lack of robustness in the quality of research, which are explored in this article.","PeriodicalId":52310,"journal":{"name":"Gifted and Talented International","volume":"32 1","pages":"87 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15332276.2018.1522935","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The landscape of Australian gifted education research: 1992–2013\",\"authors\":\"J. Jolly, A. Chessman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15332276.2018.1522935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study seeks to investigate the body of literature generated in the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education from the establishment of the journal in 1992 until 2013, focusing on the research field in order to understand its research foci, the rigor of research generated, and how events in the Australian context can influence the type of research undertaken. This study was guided by four research questions (1) to what extent is research published in AJGE empirical?; (2) what proportions of the articles are quantitative, qualitative, or non-empirical?; (3) how does the empirical rigor compare over time?; and (4) to what extent has the 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into the Education of Gifted Children influenced the research foci? A database of AJGE articles was constructed, and an adapted version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to classify empirical studies. Results indicated that qualitative and quantitative research was equally undertaken; however, case studies and quantitative descriptive analysis were favored over other types of approaches. Empirical rigor varied over time, and few recommendations from the 2001Australian Senate Report were reflected in the research undertaken. There are a number of contextual explanations for the irregular presentation and lack of robustness in the quality of research, which are explored in this article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gifted and Talented International\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"87 - 98\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15332276.2018.1522935\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gifted and Talented International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1522935\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted and Talented International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1522935","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要本研究旨在调查《澳大拉西亚天才教育杂志》从1992年创办到2013年期间产生的大量文献,重点关注研究领域,以了解其研究重点、研究的严谨性,以及澳大利亚背景下的事件如何影响所进行的研究类型。本研究以四个研究问题为指导:(1)AJGE上发表的研究在多大程度上是实证的?;(2) 文章中有多大比例是定量的、定性的或非实证的?;(3) 随着时间的推移,经验的严谨性如何比较?;以及(4)2001年澳大利亚参议院对天才儿童教育的调查在多大程度上影响了研究重点?构建了AJGE文章数据库,并使用混合方法评估工具(MMAT)的改编版本对实证研究进行分类。结果表明,定性和定量研究同等进行;然而,与其他类型的方法相比,案例研究和定量描述性分析更受青睐。随着时间的推移,经验的严谨性各不相同,2001年澳大利亚参议院报告中的建议很少反映在所进行的研究中。对于研究质量的不规则呈现和缺乏稳健性,有许多上下文解释,本文对此进行了探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The landscape of Australian gifted education research: 1992–2013
ABSTRACT This study seeks to investigate the body of literature generated in the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education from the establishment of the journal in 1992 until 2013, focusing on the research field in order to understand its research foci, the rigor of research generated, and how events in the Australian context can influence the type of research undertaken. This study was guided by four research questions (1) to what extent is research published in AJGE empirical?; (2) what proportions of the articles are quantitative, qualitative, or non-empirical?; (3) how does the empirical rigor compare over time?; and (4) to what extent has the 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into the Education of Gifted Children influenced the research foci? A database of AJGE articles was constructed, and an adapted version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to classify empirical studies. Results indicated that qualitative and quantitative research was equally undertaken; however, case studies and quantitative descriptive analysis were favored over other types of approaches. Empirical rigor varied over time, and few recommendations from the 2001Australian Senate Report were reflected in the research undertaken. There are a number of contextual explanations for the irregular presentation and lack of robustness in the quality of research, which are explored in this article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gifted and Talented International
Gifted and Talented International Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.30
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