Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211046394
Ashley S. Flynn, A. Shelton
Gifted and talented education (GATE) exemplifies racial and economic hierarchies that exist in our society, with historically marginalized (HM) students significantly less likely to be identified as gifted, and subsequently receiving gifted services, than their peers (Grissom et al., 2019). Peters (2021) advanced the dialogue around inequities by attempting to not only highlight their existence but to also offer insights into the barriers to overcoming inequity. Although we agree with Peters on his thorough analysis of the complex factors, we challenge the assertion that investigating alternative identification methods wastes effort on solving the wrong problem because traditional standardized tests play a critical role in perpetuating, and often amplifying, systemic inequities in education. Grounded in the University of California (UC) system’s effort to reduce bias in their admissions decisions, Peters (2021) asserts that the inclusion of traditional standardized tests promotes racial and economic diversity in educational programs. However, the report from the UC task force tells a more nuanced story (University of California Academic Senate, 2020). Although test scores produced more equitable results than other achievement metrics, namely high school GPA, this approach was far from demonstrating equity. Prior to dropping standardized tests, 37% of California residents in the UC student body were HM students, whereas 59% of the state’s high school graduates were HM students. Moreover, the task force found substantial performance differences among demographic groups on the SAT and the ACT, noting that these tests alone would have precluded many HM students from gaining admission to the UC system. The advantage of including standardized test scores was due to a comprehensive review of them that allowed for varying thresholds based on students’ context. Although traditional standardized tests may not universally exacerbate existing disparities, it is clear that they are not equitably identifying students for admission. Consistent with the UC findings, the College Board itself reports gaps in SAT performance as a function of racial and economic demographics, with discrepancies as large as 15% to 20% for Black and Latinx students compared with White and Asian students (College Board, 2014, 2020). When considering the intersection of race and family income, the results are even more striking: The effect of family income on SAT performance is almost twice as large for Black students than for White students (Dixon-Román et al., 2013). Similar performance discrepancies exist across other common tests used for university admissions (e.g., ACT, 2020) such as intelligence quotient and achievement tests commonly used for gifted identification (e.g., Kena et al., 2016; Silverman, 2009). One interpretation of these scores is that different groups have different levels of ability, but these assessments are largely testing past achievement. Although these may b
资优教育(GATE)体现了我们社会中存在的种族和经济等级制度，历史上被边缘化的(HM)学生被认定为资优的可能性明显低于同龄人，随后接受资优服务的可能性(Grissom等人，2019)。Peters(2021)推进了围绕不平等的对话，不仅试图强调不平等的存在，而且还提供了克服不平等障碍的见解。虽然我们同意彼得斯对复杂因素的全面分析，但我们质疑这样一种说法，即调查其他识别方法是在浪费解决错误问题的精力，因为传统的标准化考试在延续和放大教育中的系统性不平等方面发挥了关键作用。彼得斯(2021)以加州大学(UC)系统为减少招生决策中的偏见所做的努力为基础，断言将传统的标准化考试纳入教育项目会促进种族和经济多样性。然而，加州大学特别工作组的报告讲述了一个更微妙的故事(加州大学学术参议院，2020年)。尽管考试分数比其他成就指标(即高中GPA)产生更公平的结果，但这种方法远不能证明公平。在取消标准化考试之前，加州大学学生群体中37%的加州居民是HM学生，而该州59%的高中毕业生是HM学生。此外，工作组还发现，不同人口群体在SAT和ACT上的表现存在显著差异，并指出，仅凭这些测试就会使许多HM学生无法进入加州大学系统。纳入标准化考试成绩的优势在于，对这些成绩进行了全面的评估，允许根据学生的情况设置不同的阈值。虽然传统的标准化考试可能不会普遍加剧现有的差距，但很明显，它们不能公平地确定学生的入学资格。与加州大学的研究结果一致，大学理事会本身也报告了SAT成绩的差距，这是种族和经济人口统计的结果，与白人和亚洲学生相比，黑人和拉丁裔学生的差距高达15%至20%(大学理事会，2014年，2020年)。当考虑种族和家庭收入的交集时，结果更加惊人:黑人学生的家庭收入对SAT成绩的影响几乎是白人学生的两倍(Dixon-Román et al.， 2013)。类似的表现差异存在于用于大学入学的其他常见测试(例如，ACT, 2020)，例如智商和通常用于天赋识别的成就测试(例如，Kena等人，2016;西尔弗曼,2009)。对这些分数的一种解释是，不同的群体有不同的能力水平，但这些评估主要是测试过去的成就。虽然从历史上看，这些可能是机会均等的人在大学里成功与否的良好预测指标，但在试图确定谁将在大学里茁壮成长(或GATE编程)的学生时，人们必须质疑如何根据机会差距来解决这些差异。当地规范(例如，根据子组内的分数分布进行选择)为人口统计学中的分数差异提供了一种解决方案(例如，Peters, 2021)。然而，当应用于人口统计水平时，这相当于说某些群体需要较低的标准。虽然在大学录取的时候，机会差距的累积效应可能需要对录取要求进行一些调整，但与人口统计学相关的规范仍然传递出这样的信息:一个群体天生就比另一个群体更有能力。对于伽特来说，如果我们从优秀学生来自各种背景的前提出发，那么结论一定是门槛不需要降低;它需要改变。在GATE，衡量能力/潜力而不是成就可能是至关重要的，在那里，高级学习计划可以帮助消除机会差距。这就是替代/补充方法发挥作用的地方。替代解决方案不需要消除测试;测试种类繁多，包括可能反映高级学习能力的基本技能和能力的测试(Lohman, 2005)。通过更直接地关注我们真正想要测量的东西，替代方法不仅可以帮助确定更多的HM学生获得资优服务(Lohman, 2005)，还可以帮助建立更全面、包容和准确的学术能力概念。因此，alternative 1046394 GCQXXX10.1177/00169862211046394Gifted Child QuarterlyFlynn and Shelton research-article2021
{"title":"Solving the Right Problem: The Need for Alternative Identification Measures in Gifted Education","authors":"Ashley S. Flynn, A. Shelton","doi":"10.1177/00169862211046394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211046394","url":null,"abstract":"Gifted and talented education (GATE) exemplifies racial and economic hierarchies that exist in our society, with historically marginalized (HM) students significantly less likely to be identified as gifted, and subsequently receiving gifted services, than their peers (Grissom et al., 2019). Peters (2021) advanced the dialogue around inequities by attempting to not only highlight their existence but to also offer insights into the barriers to overcoming inequity. Although we agree with Peters on his thorough analysis of the complex factors, we challenge the assertion that investigating alternative identification methods wastes effort on solving the wrong problem because traditional standardized tests play a critical role in perpetuating, and often amplifying, systemic inequities in education. Grounded in the University of California (UC) system’s effort to reduce bias in their admissions decisions, Peters (2021) asserts that the inclusion of traditional standardized tests promotes racial and economic diversity in educational programs. However, the report from the UC task force tells a more nuanced story (University of California Academic Senate, 2020). Although test scores produced more equitable results than other achievement metrics, namely high school GPA, this approach was far from demonstrating equity. Prior to dropping standardized tests, 37% of California residents in the UC student body were HM students, whereas 59% of the state’s high school graduates were HM students. Moreover, the task force found substantial performance differences among demographic groups on the SAT and the ACT, noting that these tests alone would have precluded many HM students from gaining admission to the UC system. The advantage of including standardized test scores was due to a comprehensive review of them that allowed for varying thresholds based on students’ context. Although traditional standardized tests may not universally exacerbate existing disparities, it is clear that they are not equitably identifying students for admission. Consistent with the UC findings, the College Board itself reports gaps in SAT performance as a function of racial and economic demographics, with discrepancies as large as 15% to 20% for Black and Latinx students compared with White and Asian students (College Board, 2014, 2020). When considering the intersection of race and family income, the results are even more striking: The effect of family income on SAT performance is almost twice as large for Black students than for White students (Dixon-Román et al., 2013). Similar performance discrepancies exist across other common tests used for university admissions (e.g., ACT, 2020) such as intelligence quotient and achievement tests commonly used for gifted identification (e.g., Kena et al., 2016; Silverman, 2009). One interpretation of these scores is that different groups have different levels of ability, but these assessments are largely testing past achievement. Although these may b","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"46 1","pages":"144 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76171913","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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037713
Rhoda Myra Garces-Bacsal, H. Elhoweris
{"title":"Decentering Whiteness in Gifted Education: Addressing the Needs of the Gifted “Others” Through Social Justice and Culturally Responsive Pedagogies","authors":"Rhoda Myra Garces-Bacsal, H. Elhoweris","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037713","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"124 1","pages":"121 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83442092","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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211039731
Jemimah Young, J. Young
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211039731","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":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83152392","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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037968
P. Olszewski-Kubilius, R. Subotnik
Peters (2021) argues that gifted education has a severe problem regarding the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students as well as children from low-income families—and that the field has not achieved measurable success in improving equity. He supports his arguments by highlighting data showing that the focus has been on the wrong solution—namely finding some method of identification that will result in proportional representation. Peters purports that the underidentification of whole groups of students largely reflects disparities that exist in opportunities to learn by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which result from institutional racism and poverty. We agree with Peters that gifted education specialists are responsible for making today’s gifted education services equitable, accessible, welcoming, and effective for all students, and we offer suggestions on how to enhance the effectiveness of those efforts and avoid pitfalls that derail good ideas.
{"title":"Response to Peters: Promising Practices and a Missing Piece","authors":"P. Olszewski-Kubilius, R. Subotnik","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037968","url":null,"abstract":"Peters (2021) argues that gifted education has a severe problem regarding the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students as well as children from low-income families—and that the field has not achieved measurable success in improving equity. He supports his arguments by highlighting data showing that the focus has been on the wrong solution—namely finding some method of identification that will result in proportional representation. Peters purports that the underidentification of whole groups of students largely reflects disparities that exist in opportunities to learn by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which result from institutional racism and poverty. We agree with Peters that gifted education specialists are responsible for making today’s gifted education services equitable, accessible, welcoming, and effective for all students, and we offer suggestions on how to enhance the effectiveness of those efforts and avoid pitfalls that derail good ideas.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"86 1","pages":"110 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79406460","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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037708
M. Matthews, Jennifer H. Robins
{"title":"Journal Editors’ Role in Supporting Equity","authors":"M. Matthews, Jennifer H. Robins","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037708","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"78 1","pages":"161 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90356758","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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211039735
Matthew C. Makel
{"title":"Additional Challenges to Achieving Equity in Gifted and Talented Education","authors":"Matthew C. Makel","doi":"10.1177/00169862211039735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211039735","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"19 1","pages":"101 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84386161","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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211068551
F. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson
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
1177/00169862211068551《资优儿童》季刊
{"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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-03DOI: 10.1177/00169862211037943
Russell T Warne
Peters (2021) presented an analysis of disproportionate representation of demographic groups in gifted education programs. He views disproportionate representation as a consequence of inequalities that originate outside of gifted education and says that narrowly focusing on gifted education practices will be inadequate for remedying the inequities in the field. Peters’ analysis has four levels of increasing generality: local gifted education practices, proximal causes, distal causes, and theoretical causes. Unfortunately, Peters’ argument grows increasingly shaky as its generality increases.
{"title":"Analyzing Disproportionate Representation in Gifted Education: Identification Procedures, Proximal Causes, Distal Causes, and Theoretical Causes","authors":"Russell T Warne","doi":"10.1177/00169862211037943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037943","url":null,"abstract":"Peters (2021) presented an analysis of disproportionate representation of demographic groups in gifted education programs. He views disproportionate representation as a consequence of inequalities that originate outside of gifted education and says that narrowly focusing on gifted education practices will be inadequate for remedying the inequities in the field. Peters’ analysis has four levels of increasing generality: local gifted education practices, proximal causes, distal causes, and theoretical causes. Unfortunately, Peters’ argument grows increasingly shaky as its generality increases.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"29 1","pages":"98 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80186171","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}
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：