Pub Date : 2021-09-24DOI: 10.1177/02614294211046324
D. Simonton
The terms giftedness and genius entered the research literature in the 19th century. Although not synonymous, both terms were defined according to potential or actual achievement in a specific domain. However, in the early 20th century, both terms became defined according to performance on domain-generic IQ tests. Given the empirical relations between achievement and intelligence, this transfer of meaning is unjustified. Both giftedness and genius must be defined with respect to potential or actual domain-specific achievements.
{"title":"Giftedness from the perspective of research on genius: Some precautionary implications","authors":"D. Simonton","doi":"10.1177/02614294211046324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211046324","url":null,"abstract":"The terms giftedness and genius entered the research literature in the 19th century. Although not synonymous, both terms were defined according to potential or actual achievement in a specific domain. However, in the early 20th century, both terms became defined according to performance on domain-generic IQ tests. Given the empirical relations between achievement and intelligence, this transfer of meaning is unjustified. Both giftedness and genius must be defined with respect to potential or actual domain-specific achievements.","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"532 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128303153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-07DOI: 10.1177/02614294211042333
J. Renzulli, R. Beghetto, Laurel E. Brandon, M. Karwowski
This article describes the development of an instrument for examining schools as institutions where teaching practices and school structures provide opportunities and support for student imagination, creativity, and innovation, as well as initial comparisons using the instrument, using a sample of n = 5020 students and n = 268 teachers (n = 161 classes of students nested within teachers). The three five-item subscales show acceptable reliability across groups (.73–.90). Paired sample t tests indicate that, on average, students reported significantly more opportunities for creativity as compared to imagination or innovation. There were also significant differences between actual student reports and teachers’ predictions only for creativity and innovation. Students reported more opportunities for creativity and innovation than their teachers predicted. However, students reported significantly less opportunity for imagination, creativity, and innovation than their teachers’ ideals. Implications for subsequent research and practice are also discussed.
{"title":"Development of an instrument to measure opportunities for imagination, creativity, and innovation (ICI) in schools","authors":"J. Renzulli, R. Beghetto, Laurel E. Brandon, M. Karwowski","doi":"10.1177/02614294211042333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211042333","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes the development of an instrument for examining schools as institutions where teaching practices and school structures provide opportunities and support for student imagination, creativity, and innovation, as well as initial comparisons using the instrument, using a sample of n = 5020 students and n = 268 teachers (n = 161 classes of students nested within teachers). The three five-item subscales show acceptable reliability across groups (.73–.90). Paired sample t tests indicate that, on average, students reported significantly more opportunities for creativity as compared to imagination or innovation. There were also significant differences between actual student reports and teachers’ predictions only for creativity and innovation. Students reported more opportunities for creativity and innovation than their teachers predicted. However, students reported significantly less opportunity for imagination, creativity, and innovation than their teachers’ ideals. Implications for subsequent research and practice are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123681687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-11DOI: 10.1177/02614294211038988
M. S. Meyer, J. Plucker
The goal of gifted education is to serve the needs of individuals with high potential and advanced ability. However, the term “gifted” can create barriers in the minds of the public and policymakers, effectively framing these advanced learning opportunities as inequitable and inaccessible. Excellence gaps, or differences in advanced performance among student groups, provide clear indications that systemic changes need to be made in order to provide advanced learning opportunities to all students who need them. To refocus the collective efforts of scholars and stakeholders on promoting equity and excellence, research-based strategies for reducing excellence gaps (e.g., frontloading, universal screening) should be adopted. As best practices in the field shift, so too should terminology. Moving away from words that convey images of fixed abilities (e.g., gifted) and toward terms that acknowledge the dynamic, contextual nature of intelligence and talent is a good start. Suggestions for alternate terminology are discussed.
{"title":"What’s in a name? Rethinking “gifted” to promote equity and excellence","authors":"M. S. Meyer, J. Plucker","doi":"10.1177/02614294211038988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211038988","url":null,"abstract":"The goal of gifted education is to serve the needs of individuals with high potential and advanced ability. However, the term “gifted” can create barriers in the minds of the public and policymakers, effectively framing these advanced learning opportunities as inequitable and inaccessible. Excellence gaps, or differences in advanced performance among student groups, provide clear indications that systemic changes need to be made in order to provide advanced learning opportunities to all students who need them. To refocus the collective efforts of scholars and stakeholders on promoting equity and excellence, research-based strategies for reducing excellence gaps (e.g., frontloading, universal screening) should be adopted. As best practices in the field shift, so too should terminology. Moving away from words that convey images of fixed abilities (e.g., gifted) and toward terms that acknowledge the dynamic, contextual nature of intelligence and talent is a good start. Suggestions for alternate terminology are discussed.","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115014373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-06DOI: 10.1177/02614294211013441
Abeer Jaffal, Maher M. Abu-Hilal, Mariam N Al-Naimi
This study tested the construct validity and reliability of the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) with the purpose to have a valid and reliable measure to identify the gifted individuals. The sample consisted of 176 superior students from grades five and six in Qatar. The results revealed a high consistency in rating the students by their teachers. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the items clustered around the 12 subscales. Also, the indicators in form of parcels produced 12 factors and two second-order factors that represent learning/personal and verbal/artistic characteristics. The results showed that those major characteristics are highly correlated and provided support to the convergent validity of the subscales. The implication of these results indicate that the subscales can be used collectively or separately to assess students’ characteristics of superiority in the Arab milieu.
{"title":"Construct validity and reliability of the scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students among a sample of elementary students in Qatar","authors":"Abeer Jaffal, Maher M. Abu-Hilal, Mariam N Al-Naimi","doi":"10.1177/02614294211013441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211013441","url":null,"abstract":"This study tested the construct validity and reliability of the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) with the purpose to have a valid and reliable measure to identify the gifted individuals. The sample consisted of 176 superior students from grades five and six in Qatar. The results revealed a high consistency in rating the students by their teachers. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the items clustered around the 12 subscales. Also, the indicators in form of parcels produced 12 factors and two second-order factors that represent learning/personal and verbal/artistic characteristics. The results showed that those major characteristics are highly correlated and provided support to the convergent validity of the subscales. The implication of these results indicate that the subscales can be used collectively or separately to assess students’ characteristics of superiority in the Arab milieu.","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"94 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125978833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-29DOI: 10.1177/02614294211013345
R. Sternberg
The focus of the field of giftedness is on the wrong thing. Instead of focusing on identifying who is gifted, the field should identify how people will deploy their gifts and educate students to deploy their gifts in ways that will make the world a better place. In this article, I present at least a partial taxonomy of how gifts can be deployed and discuss how the taxonomy can be used to shift the emphasis in the field. In particular, I discuss nine types of giftedness: Type 1—unidentified; Type 2—inert (largely undeployed) giftedness; Type 3—fully transactional giftedness (where one gives something back in return for getting something); Type 4—self-transformational giftedness (where one transforms oneself but not others); Type 5—other-transformational giftedness (where one transforms others but not oneself); Type 6—full transformational giftedness (where one transforms both oneself and others); Type 7—self-destructive giftedness (where one’s gifts are deployed self-destructively); Type 8—other-destructive giftedness (where one’s gifts are deployed toward destroying others); and Type 9—full pseudo-transformational giftedness (where one’s gifts are destructive of oneself and others).
{"title":"Identification for utilization, not merely possession, of gifts: What matters is not gifts but rather deployment of gifts","authors":"R. Sternberg","doi":"10.1177/02614294211013345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211013345","url":null,"abstract":"The focus of the field of giftedness is on the wrong thing. Instead of focusing on identifying who is gifted, the field should identify how people will deploy their gifts and educate students to deploy their gifts in ways that will make the world a better place. In this article, I present at least a partial taxonomy of how gifts can be deployed and discuss how the taxonomy can be used to shift the emphasis in the field. In particular, I discuss nine types of giftedness: Type 1—unidentified; Type 2—inert (largely undeployed) giftedness; Type 3—fully transactional giftedness (where one gives something back in return for getting something); Type 4—self-transformational giftedness (where one transforms oneself but not others); Type 5—other-transformational giftedness (where one transforms others but not oneself); Type 6—full transformational giftedness (where one transforms both oneself and others); Type 7—self-destructive giftedness (where one’s gifts are deployed self-destructively); Type 8—other-destructive giftedness (where one’s gifts are deployed toward destroying others); and Type 9—full pseudo-transformational giftedness (where one’s gifts are destructive of oneself and others).","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125689328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-24DOI: 10.1177/0261429421995188
C. Maker
With problem-solving as the focus and wisdom as the goal, the concept of giftedness is reconceptualized in the 21st century context. The two most prominent constructs in the field of education for the gifted, creativity and intelligence, are integrated into a view of exceptional talent as consisting of the ability and willingness to solve complex problems, the ability to solve varied types of problems, and a highly integrated and interconnected knowledge base. Both intelligence and creativity involve similar processes, but these processes are used in different ways during the problem-solving process. Using the framework of a paradigm as outlined by Dai and Chen, the elements of a different perspective resulting from more than 40 years of developing a conceptual framework, implementing practices based on that framework, and research on these practices are presented: definition (What?), assessment (Who?), purpose (Why?), and development (How?).
{"title":"Exceptional talent in the 21st century context: Conceptual framework, definition, assessment, and development","authors":"C. Maker","doi":"10.1177/0261429421995188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421995188","url":null,"abstract":"With problem-solving as the focus and wisdom as the goal, the concept of giftedness is reconceptualized in the 21st century context. The two most prominent constructs in the field of education for the gifted, creativity and intelligence, are integrated into a view of exceptional talent as consisting of the ability and willingness to solve complex problems, the ability to solve varied types of problems, and a highly integrated and interconnected knowledge base. Both intelligence and creativity involve similar processes, but these processes are used in different ways during the problem-solving process. Using the framework of a paradigm as outlined by Dai and Chen, the elements of a different perspective resulting from more than 40 years of developing a conceptual framework, implementing practices based on that framework, and research on these practices are presented: definition (What?), assessment (Who?), purpose (Why?), and development (How?).","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124640599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-14DOI: 10.1177/0261429421998304
J. Renzulli
A major controversy facing the field of gifted education is the underrepresentation of low income, minority, and dual language students. Strategies for addressing this challenge have been to use universal screening and local norms; however, these useful recommendations continue to focus on traditional testing procedures that measure what students already know and overlook other important traits that contribute to high levels of creative productivity. Assessment for learning examines traits such as interests, instructional preference styles, preferred modes of expression, and executive function skills. Although sometimes referred as the “soft skills,” they have gained much more attention on the parts of college admission officers and employers, especially for higher level leadership positions. Instruments that assess these traits are often completed by the students themselves; and technology and artificial intelligence now allow us to administer and analyze them with the same ease used for traditional standardized tests.
{"title":"Assessment for learning: The missing element for identifying high potential in low income and minority groups","authors":"J. Renzulli","doi":"10.1177/0261429421998304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421998304","url":null,"abstract":"A major controversy facing the field of gifted education is the underrepresentation of low income, minority, and dual language students. Strategies for addressing this challenge have been to use universal screening and local norms; however, these useful recommendations continue to focus on traditional testing procedures that measure what students already know and overlook other important traits that contribute to high levels of creative productivity. Assessment for learning examines traits such as interests, instructional preference styles, preferred modes of expression, and executive function skills. Although sometimes referred as the “soft skills,” they have gained much more attention on the parts of college admission officers and employers, especially for higher level leadership positions. Instruments that assess these traits are often completed by the students themselves; and technology and artificial intelligence now allow us to administer and analyze them with the same ease used for traditional standardized tests.","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130819874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-09DOI: 10.1177/0261429421999325
Gillian Eriksson
Hearing Dr Barbara Clark present was an uplifting experience as she engaged the audience with her extensive knowledge, advocacy, challenging ideas, exploration of neuroscience, depth of insight, personal scenarios and stories of the many hours spent in classrooms with gifted students. When I first heard her present in South Africa at a conference organized at the University of the Witwatersrand, I noticed the quiet attentiveness of teachers and educators who nodded in agreement as she related truths about the gifted experience and then the long lines waiting to meet her and have her sign her book, “Growing Up Gifted” (Clark, 2012, Prentice-Hall). She shared her extensive knowledge presented in “Growing Up Gifted”(Clark, 2012), still used widely. With each edition from 1979, she infused current issues and trends, being aware that the book was being used throughout the world with unique perspectives. She received her Ed.D. in Gifted Education from the University of California in Los Angeles and continued to impact the field and provide leadership for certification, credentials and degree programs in her role as Professor of the Charter College of Education and California State University in Los Angeles (later Professor Emerita). No doubt the way she presented challenging ideas and critical issues was informed by her many professional leadership and Advocacy roles, as President of the California Association for Gifted Children, then as President of the National Association for Gifted Children in the USA and then globally as the President of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (1999–2003). Her eminence in Gifted education can be seen in the awards she received: the Ruth Martinson Award from the California Association; the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association for Gifted Children in 1997;
听到芭芭拉·克拉克博士的演讲是一次令人振奋的经历，她用她丰富的知识、倡导、具有挑战性的想法、对神经科学的探索、深刻的洞察力、个人场景和在教室里与天才学生一起度过的许多小时的故事吸引了观众。当我第一次在南非威特沃特斯兰德大学(University of the Witwatersrand)组织的一次会议上听到她的演讲时，我注意到老师和教育工作者的安静关注，当她讲述天才经历的真相时，他们点头表示同意，然后排着长队等着见她，让她在她的书《天才成长》(Growing Up gifted, Clark, 2012, Prentice-Hall)上签名。她在“成长天才”(Clark, 2012)中分享了她丰富的知识，至今仍被广泛使用。从1979年开始的每一个版本，她都融入了当前的问题和趋势，她意识到这本书正在以独特的视角在全世界使用。她获得了教育学博士学位。她在洛杉矶的加州大学担任资优教育的教授，并继续影响该领域，并在洛杉矶的特许教育学院和加州州立大学教授(后来的名誉教授)的角色中为认证，证书和学位课程提供领导。毫无疑问，她提出具有挑战性的想法和关键问题的方式是由她的许多专业领导和倡导角色所决定的，她曾担任加州天才儿童协会主席，然后担任美国国家天才儿童协会主席，然后担任世界天才儿童理事会主席(1999-2003)。她在天才教育方面的卓越成就可以从她获得的奖项中看出:加州协会颁发的露丝马丁森奖;1997年获全国资优儿童协会颁发杰出服务奖;
{"title":"The legend and the legacy of Dr. Barbara Clark November 4, 1931–January 2, 2021","authors":"Gillian Eriksson","doi":"10.1177/0261429421999325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421999325","url":null,"abstract":"Hearing Dr Barbara Clark present was an uplifting experience as she engaged the audience with her extensive knowledge, advocacy, challenging ideas, exploration of neuroscience, depth of insight, personal scenarios and stories of the many hours spent in classrooms with gifted students. When I first heard her present in South Africa at a conference organized at the University of the Witwatersrand, I noticed the quiet attentiveness of teachers and educators who nodded in agreement as she related truths about the gifted experience and then the long lines waiting to meet her and have her sign her book, “Growing Up Gifted” (Clark, 2012, Prentice-Hall). She shared her extensive knowledge presented in “Growing Up Gifted”(Clark, 2012), still used widely. With each edition from 1979, she infused current issues and trends, being aware that the book was being used throughout the world with unique perspectives. She received her Ed.D. in Gifted Education from the University of California in Los Angeles and continued to impact the field and provide leadership for certification, credentials and degree programs in her role as Professor of the Charter College of Education and California State University in Los Angeles (later Professor Emerita). No doubt the way she presented challenging ideas and critical issues was informed by her many professional leadership and Advocacy roles, as President of the California Association for Gifted Children, then as President of the National Association for Gifted Children in the USA and then globally as the President of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (1999–2003). Her eminence in Gifted education can be seen in the awards she received: the Ruth Martinson Award from the California Association; the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association for Gifted Children in 1997;","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129553593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-23DOI: 10.1177/0261429421994101
Aaron Johnson, M. Shaughnessy
I studied and became an accordion teacher in the Jyväskylä Conservatory, in Finland. When I qualified, I was the 9th accordion teacher in Finland. Then at the same time I studied at the University of Jyväskylä Musicology, Educational science, Philosophy and Art education. Then, the Jyväskylä University started educating music subject teachers, and I started my studies at that time. I was the first music teacher in Finland who qualified outside the Sibelius Academy. Today, music teachers are educated in the Sibelius Academy, at Jyväskylä University and Oulu University in Finland. After completing my studies, I became a senior lecturer of music education in the University of Joensuu, which in 2011 became a part of the University of Eastern Finland when it merged with Kuopio University. I conducted my doctoral dissertation in 2000 on the topic of music orientation. Then, in 2011 I became a professor in Education, focusing particularly on the pedagogy of Arts and Skills. All the while I have been playing bass in different bands. I have been involved in much studio work and recordings, played in theater band in various musicals and the like. I have been involved in thousands of restaurant gigs and public performances. Now from the beginning of 2019, I was nominated as professor in Creativity education in the University of Eastern Finland for 5 years.
{"title":"A reflective conversation with Antti Juvonen about creativity: Past present and future","authors":"Aaron Johnson, M. Shaughnessy","doi":"10.1177/0261429421994101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421994101","url":null,"abstract":"I studied and became an accordion teacher in the Jyväskylä Conservatory, in Finland. When I qualified, I was the 9th accordion teacher in Finland. Then at the same time I studied at the University of Jyväskylä Musicology, Educational science, Philosophy and Art education. Then, the Jyväskylä University started educating music subject teachers, and I started my studies at that time. I was the first music teacher in Finland who qualified outside the Sibelius Academy. Today, music teachers are educated in the Sibelius Academy, at Jyväskylä University and Oulu University in Finland. After completing my studies, I became a senior lecturer of music education in the University of Joensuu, which in 2011 became a part of the University of Eastern Finland when it merged with Kuopio University. I conducted my doctoral dissertation in 2000 on the topic of music orientation. Then, in 2011 I became a professor in Education, focusing particularly on the pedagogy of Arts and Skills. All the while I have been playing bass in different bands. I have been involved in much studio work and recordings, played in theater band in various musicals and the like. I have been involved in thousands of restaurant gigs and public performances. Now from the beginning of 2019, I was nominated as professor in Creativity education in the University of Eastern Finland for 5 years.","PeriodicalId":186980,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Education International","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122651914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：