Pub Date : 2021-12-28DOI: 10.1177/00169862211066947
S. Peters
For anyone who puts pen to paper, there can be no greater compliment than when someone reads your work, except when that person then takes the time to think about it and respond. As part of this special issue, almost 50 people took the time to engage on the topic of equity in gifted education and respond to the ideas I offered (see Peters, 2022). It was a gift that left me humbled. Because of the number of commentaries and range of ideas offered, my goal in this final paper was not to respond or react to them individually. Instead, I printed them all out, spread them across the floor of my office, and tried to find areas of agreement that might help the field move forward. As many gifted education scholars and practitioners have long lamented, the existence of disproportional representation within gifted and talented programs has gone on for too long and the time has come for bold, collective action. Although they covered a range of topics, in reading through the commentaries, there appeared to be two broad areas in which most of authors agree:
{"title":"Where Does Gifted Education Go From Here: Chaos or Community?","authors":"S. Peters","doi":"10.1177/00169862211066947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211066947","url":null,"abstract":"For anyone who puts pen to paper, there can be no greater compliment than when someone reads your work, except when that person then takes the time to think about it and respond. As part of this special issue, almost 50 people took the time to engage on the topic of equity in gifted education and respond to the ideas I offered (see Peters, 2022). It was a gift that left me humbled. Because of the number of commentaries and range of ideas offered, my goal in this final paper was not to respond or react to them individually. Instead, I printed them all out, spread them across the floor of my office, and tried to find areas of agreement that might help the field move forward. As many gifted education scholars and practitioners have long lamented, the existence of disproportional representation within gifted and talented programs has gone on for too long and the time has come for bold, collective action. Although they covered a range of topics, in reading through the commentaries, there appeared to be two broad areas in which most of authors agree:","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"21 1","pages":"163 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77986727","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 : 2021-12-17DOI: 10.1177/00169862211061874
Selcuk Acar, K. Berthiaume, K. Grajzel, Denis G. Dumas, Charles “Tedd” Flemister, Peter Organisciak
In this study, we applied different text-mining methods to the originality scoring of the Unusual Uses Test (UUT) and Just Suppose Test (JST) from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)–Verbal. Responses from 102 and 123 participants who completed Form A and Form B, respectively, were scored using three different text-mining methods. The validity of these scoring methods was tested against TTCT’s manual-based scoring and a subjective snapshot scoring method. Results indicated that text-mining systems are applicable to both UUT and JST items across both forms and students’ performance on those items can predict total originality and creativity scores across all six tasks in the TTCT-Verbal. Comparatively, the text-mining methods worked better for UUT than JST. Of the three text-mining models we tested, the Global Vectors for Word Representation (GLoVe) model produced the most reliable and valid scores. These findings indicate that creativity assessment can be done quickly and at a lower cost using text-mining approaches.
在本研究中，我们采用不同的文本挖掘方法对托伦斯创造性思维测试(TTCT) -Verbal中的不寻常用途测试(UUT)和假设测试(JST)的独创性评分进行了研究。102名和123名参与者分别填写了表格A和表格B，他们的回答使用三种不同的文本挖掘方法进行评分。这些评分方法的有效性进行了测试TTCT的手动评分和主观快照评分方法。结果表明，文本挖掘系统适用于两种形式的UUT和JST项目，学生在这些项目上的表现可以预测TTCT-Verbal所有六个任务的总原创性和创造力得分。相比之下，文本挖掘方法对UUT的效果要优于JST。在我们测试的三个文本挖掘模型中，Global Vectors for Word Representation (GLoVe)模型产生了最可靠和有效的分数。这些发现表明，使用文本挖掘方法可以快速、低成本地完成创造力评估。
{"title":"Applying Automated Originality Scoring to the Verbal Form of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking","authors":"Selcuk Acar, K. Berthiaume, K. Grajzel, Denis G. Dumas, Charles “Tedd” Flemister, Peter Organisciak","doi":"10.1177/00169862211061874","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211061874","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we applied different text-mining methods to the originality scoring of the Unusual Uses Test (UUT) and Just Suppose Test (JST) from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)–Verbal. Responses from 102 and 123 participants who completed Form A and Form B, respectively, were scored using three different text-mining methods. The validity of these scoring methods was tested against TTCT’s manual-based scoring and a subjective snapshot scoring method. Results indicated that text-mining systems are applicable to both UUT and JST items across both forms and students’ performance on those items can predict total originality and creativity scores across all six tasks in the TTCT-Verbal. Comparatively, the text-mining methods worked better for UUT than JST. Of the three text-mining models we tested, the Global Vectors for Word Representation (GLoVe) model produced the most reliable and valid scores. These findings indicate that creativity assessment can be done quickly and at a lower cost using text-mining approaches.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"3 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78550719","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 : 2021-12-17DOI: 10.1177/00169862211061876
Nicholas W. Gelbar, Alexandra Cascio, Joseph W. Madaus, S. Reis
This article includes a current research synthesis on a subpopulation of twice exceptional individuals, those who are academically talented with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This population is emerging as an increasing focus of research, as the numbers of individuals identified are increasing. A total of 32 articles were included using the study’s inclusion criteria, and of these 32 articles, 62.5% presented data, whereas the remaining 37.5% were review or conceptual articles. This review of articles published between 1996 and 2019 suggests little research is being conducted on this population. Some of the research conducted recently involve case studies, others are correlational in nature, and most are descriptive, focusing on participants’ characteristics and how they were identified. A wide range of definitions were utilized in the literature, and to date, no empirical research has been published about this population. Implications from the current research base and suggestions for future research are included.
{"title":"A Systematic Review of the Research on Gifted Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder","authors":"Nicholas W. Gelbar, Alexandra Cascio, Joseph W. Madaus, S. Reis","doi":"10.1177/00169862211061876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211061876","url":null,"abstract":"This article includes a current research synthesis on a subpopulation of twice exceptional individuals, those who are academically talented with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This population is emerging as an increasing focus of research, as the numbers of individuals identified are increasing. A total of 32 articles were included using the study’s inclusion criteria, and of these 32 articles, 62.5% presented data, whereas the remaining 37.5% were review or conceptual articles. This review of articles published between 1996 and 2019 suggests little research is being conducted on this population. Some of the research conducted recently involve case studies, others are correlational in nature, and most are descriptive, focusing on participants’ characteristics and how they were identified. A wide range of definitions were utilized in the literature, and to date, no empirical research has been published about this population. Implications from the current research base and suggestions for future research are included.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"24 1","pages":"266 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81526089","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 : 2021-11-09DOI: 10.1177/00169862211019425
James R. Andretta, F. Worrell
The Adolescent and Adult Time Inventory–Time Attitude Scales (AATI-TA) were used to examine the association between time attitudes and self-reported academic and social–emotional outcomes in 967 academically talented adolescents (M age = 14.27, SD = 1.42) attending a summer educational program. The AATI-TA consists of six subscales assessing positive and negative attitudes toward the past, present, and future. Bivariate associations between AATI-TA subscales scores and outcomes were small. Cluster analyses of AATI-TA scores yielded several profiles, labeled Pessimists, Negatives, Ambivalents, and Positives. Students with Positive and Ambivalent profiles reported greater course enjoyment, higher perceived academic rank, and higher expected summer GPA than their peers with the Negative profile, even though the groups did not differ on how challenging they perceived the courses to be, time spent on homework, and studying. In keeping with previous research using the AATI-TA, Positives reported the most favorable outcomes, Negatives the least, and Ambivalent and Pessimistic adolescents fell between these two groups. Future research on time attitudes should include measures of actual academic performance.
{"title":"Attitudes Toward the Past, Present, and Future: Associations With Self-Reported Academic Outcomes in Academically Talented Adolescents","authors":"James R. Andretta, F. Worrell","doi":"10.1177/00169862211019425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211019425","url":null,"abstract":"The Adolescent and Adult Time Inventory–Time Attitude Scales (AATI-TA) were used to examine the association between time attitudes and self-reported academic and social–emotional outcomes in 967 academically talented adolescents (M age = 14.27, SD = 1.42) attending a summer educational program. The AATI-TA consists of six subscales assessing positive and negative attitudes toward the past, present, and future. Bivariate associations between AATI-TA subscales scores and outcomes were small. Cluster analyses of AATI-TA scores yielded several profiles, labeled Pessimists, Negatives, Ambivalents, and Positives. Students with Positive and Ambivalent profiles reported greater course enjoyment, higher perceived academic rank, and higher expected summer GPA than their peers with the Negative profile, even though the groups did not differ on how challenging they perceived the courses to be, time spent on homework, and studying. In keeping with previous research using the AATI-TA, Positives reported the most favorable outcomes, Negatives the least, and Ambivalent and Pessimistic adolescents fell between these two groups. Future research on time attitudes should include measures of actual academic performance.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"34 1","pages":"62 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86775394","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1177/00169862211042901
C. Cornoldi, D. Giofrè, I. Mammarella, E. Toffalini
Whether intellectually gifted children have a greater emotional response when tested is still unclear. This may be due to the marked heterogeneity of this particular population, and the fact that most studies lack the power to reduce the noise associated with this heterogeneity. The present study examined the relationship between performance and emotional response in 468,423 Italian fifth-graders taking a national test on mathematics and language. Analyses were performed using statistical models with polynomial terms. Special attention was paid to estimating the mean emotional response of the children who were gifted (1.5-2.5 standard deviations above the mean) or highly gifted (more than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean). The results showed that, although a lower emotional response correlated with a higher achievement, this relationship is nonlinear, and the estimates for gifted and highly gifted children were virtually the same. Girls showed a greater emotional response than boys on all levels of performance. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
{"title":"Emotional Response to Testing in Gifted and Highly Gifted Children","authors":"C. Cornoldi, D. Giofrè, I. Mammarella, E. Toffalini","doi":"10.1177/00169862211042901","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211042901","url":null,"abstract":"Whether intellectually gifted children have a greater emotional response when tested is still unclear. This may be due to the marked heterogeneity of this particular population, and the fact that most studies lack the power to reduce the noise associated with this heterogeneity. The present study examined the relationship between performance and emotional response in 468,423 Italian fifth-graders taking a national test on mathematics and language. Analyses were performed using statistical models with polynomial terms. Special attention was paid to estimating the mean emotional response of the children who were gifted (1.5-2.5 standard deviations above the mean) or highly gifted (more than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean). The results showed that, although a lower emotional response correlated with a higher achievement, this relationship is nonlinear, and the estimates for gifted and highly gifted children were virtually the same. Girls showed a greater emotional response than boys on all levels of performance. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"18 1","pages":"208 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85146628","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 : 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1177/00169862211040523
Sema Tan
Turkey adopts a single-state (centralized/unitary) system that results in following the same identification procedures and providing similar service delivery options for the entire country. At first glance, this might seem like a fair way to achieve equity within public school gifted programs. However, a close look at this system reveals several handicaps such as implementing the same teacher training program for all teacher candidates, ignoring the unequal opportunities provided in the most (İstanbul) and least (Şırnak) economically developed cities, and the accessibility of services delivered to gifted students. Turkey has paid much attention to the education of the gifted and taken several important steps for improvement in the last three decades. However, a need for bigger changes to achieve equity in gifted education is clear. With a careful planning and implementation, appropriate changes might pave the way for gifted students to access more equal opportunities to fulfill their potential.
{"title":"Providing Equity in Gifted Education in a Single-State Country","authors":"Sema Tan","doi":"10.1177/00169862211040523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040523","url":null,"abstract":"Turkey adopts a single-state (centralized/unitary) system that results in following the same identification procedures and providing similar service delivery options for the entire country. At first glance, this might seem like a fair way to achieve equity within public school gifted programs. However, a close look at this system reveals several handicaps such as implementing the same teacher training program for all teacher candidates, ignoring the unequal opportunities provided in the most (İstanbul) and least (Şırnak) economically developed cities, and the accessibility of services delivered to gifted students. Turkey has paid much attention to the education of the gifted and taken several important steps for improvement in the last three decades. However, a need for bigger changes to achieve equity in gifted education is clear. With a careful planning and implementation, appropriate changes might pave the way for gifted students to access more equal opportunities to fulfill their potential.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"350 1","pages":"157 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76570261","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 : 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1177/00169862211040527
Caitlyn Singam
“The existence of disproportionality does not make gifted services inherently racist,” writes Peters (2021) in the conclusion of his article, “The Challenges of Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and Talented Programs,” and with that statement so highlights the logical flaw that runs unchecked through his article. Although his statement is justified in the sense that the mere existence of disproportionality does not condemn gifted services as inherently unequitable—correlation, after all, does not beget causation—it does not exonerate the educational system from such charges either. The problem, then, lies less with what points Peters does make than the ones which are all the more glaring for their absence: namely, the role of school systems in perpetuating systemic racism and inequity. Per Peters’ bold concluding statement, schools and their accelerated programs do not inherently bear responsibility for the inequity that they display due to the existence of the larger context in which such programs exist, but rather exist as largely neutral entities that merely reflect the biased world that they are mired in. It is curious, then, that Peters opens his article by highlighting this result from a 2013 meta-analysis: “Petersen found that boys were more likely to be identified as gifted than girls, particularly during preadolescence, and that these findings held regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.” The very finding he highlights—indicating a notable inequity in gifted services across gender, even when results are standardized across traditional indicators of opportunity availability such as socioeconomic status—suggests that problems in GT identification run far deeper than just external problems, particularly given studies that indicate girls and boys start school on equal footing even by traditional academic measures (e.g., test scores). Peters, despite ostensibly (per the title of the paper) focusing on improving equity across all dimensions— not just race—and leading his discussion with this finding, conveniently fails to revisit it or the topic of gender inequity across the remaining nine pages of text. The astute reader may wonder how, precisely, a purportedly neutral system can take two populations that exhibit equal performance and obtain unequal results without being deemed biased. Certainly, one can ascribe at least some of the variation to outside factors—for instance, girls being discouraged from pursuing academics due to gender bias—but the fact that girls perform as well as or better than boys in school and show equal rates of academic progress (see, for instance, the work of Ding et al. [2006]), means that the effect of such biases is clearly insufficient, in and of itself, to cause the significant disparity in identification rates that is observed during the selection process for accelerated programs. Peters argues that this phenomenon may be due to “differences in true scores due to some children not hav
{"title":"Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and Talented Programs: The Need for Transparent, Scientific Methodology","authors":"Caitlyn Singam","doi":"10.1177/00169862211040527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040527","url":null,"abstract":"“The existence of disproportionality does not make gifted services inherently racist,” writes Peters (2021) in the conclusion of his article, “The Challenges of Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and Talented Programs,” and with that statement so highlights the logical flaw that runs unchecked through his article. Although his statement is justified in the sense that the mere existence of disproportionality does not condemn gifted services as inherently unequitable—correlation, after all, does not beget causation—it does not exonerate the educational system from such charges either. The problem, then, lies less with what points Peters does make than the ones which are all the more glaring for their absence: namely, the role of school systems in perpetuating systemic racism and inequity. Per Peters’ bold concluding statement, schools and their accelerated programs do not inherently bear responsibility for the inequity that they display due to the existence of the larger context in which such programs exist, but rather exist as largely neutral entities that merely reflect the biased world that they are mired in. It is curious, then, that Peters opens his article by highlighting this result from a 2013 meta-analysis: “Petersen found that boys were more likely to be identified as gifted than girls, particularly during preadolescence, and that these findings held regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.” The very finding he highlights—indicating a notable inequity in gifted services across gender, even when results are standardized across traditional indicators of opportunity availability such as socioeconomic status—suggests that problems in GT identification run far deeper than just external problems, particularly given studies that indicate girls and boys start school on equal footing even by traditional academic measures (e.g., test scores). Peters, despite ostensibly (per the title of the paper) focusing on improving equity across all dimensions— not just race—and leading his discussion with this finding, conveniently fails to revisit it or the topic of gender inequity across the remaining nine pages of text. The astute reader may wonder how, precisely, a purportedly neutral system can take two populations that exhibit equal performance and obtain unequal results without being deemed biased. Certainly, one can ascribe at least some of the variation to outside factors—for instance, girls being discouraged from pursuing academics due to gender bias—but the fact that girls perform as well as or better than boys in school and show equal rates of academic progress (see, for instance, the work of Ding et al. [2006]), means that the effect of such biases is clearly insufficient, in and of itself, to cause the significant disparity in identification rates that is observed during the selection process for accelerated programs. Peters argues that this phenomenon may be due to “differences in true scores due to some children not hav","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"78 1","pages":"152 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83753825","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 : 2021-07-21DOI: 10.1177/00169862211032987
Trent N. Cash, Tzu-Jung Lin
This study examined the psychological well-being of students enrolled in two gifted programs with different service delivery models. Participants were 292 fifth- and sixth-grade students (Mage = 11.70, SDage = 0.65) enrolled in a gifted math pull-out program (n = 103), a self-contained gifted program (n = 90), or a program providing no gifted services, which served as a control group (n = 99). Multiple differences in psychological well-being across programs were revealed in Hierarchical Linear Models, particularly in terms of math self-concept, loneliness, and maladaptive perfectionism. Students in the two gifted programs reported different patterns of psychological well-being when compared with students in the no gifted services control group. These differences suggest distinct social phenomena underlying the two different service delivery models.
{"title":"Psychological Well-Being of Intellectually and Academically Gifted Students in Self-Contained and Pull-Out Gifted Programs","authors":"Trent N. Cash, Tzu-Jung Lin","doi":"10.1177/00169862211032987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211032987","url":null,"abstract":"This study examined the psychological well-being of students enrolled in two gifted programs with different service delivery models. Participants were 292 fifth- and sixth-grade students (Mage = 11.70, SDage = 0.65) enrolled in a gifted math pull-out program (n = 103), a self-contained gifted program (n = 90), or a program providing no gifted services, which served as a control group (n = 99). Multiple differences in psychological well-being across programs were revealed in Hierarchical Linear Models, particularly in terms of math self-concept, loneliness, and maladaptive perfectionism. Students in the two gifted programs reported different patterns of psychological well-being when compared with students in the no gifted services control group. These differences suggest distinct social phenomena underlying the two different service delivery models.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"2 1","pages":"188 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89545676","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 : 2021-07-12DOI: 10.1177/00169862211029681
C. O. Lo, Shun-Fu Hu, H. Sungur, Ching-Hui Lin
In a recent position statement, the National Association of Gifted Children argued the importance of providing equitable treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other sexual and gender minority individuals (LGBTQ+) gifted youth to help them maximize their potential. However, there are very few empirical studies focusing on the intersection of giftedness and gender identities. Little is known regarding these students’ experience at, and outside of, school. Focusing on the individual process of gender identity development and self-acceptance, we interviewed nine LGBTQ+ postsecondary students in North America (aged between 19 and 29 years) who are graduates of an academically focused high school in Turkey. In particular, we studied their ways of thinking, stress coping strategies, and environmental factors that may have enabled their self-acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities. Findings of the study show that the mental health of LGBTQ+ is a function of individual factors (e.g., coping strategies), structural factors (e.g., a homophobic sociocultural environment), and the context. The findings also indicate the benefits of complexity and reflectiveness in thinking, metacognition and the ability to separate identity labels from identities, enabled by high school peer support, liberal curriculum and classroom discussions, and access to information during adolescence.
在最近的一份立场声明中，全国天才儿童协会(National Association of Gifted Children)认为，为女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、酷儿和其他性和性别少数群体(LGBTQ+)的天才青少年提供公平对待的重要性，以帮助他们最大限度地发挥自己的潜力。然而，很少有实证研究关注天赋和性别认同的交集。人们对这些学生在校内外的经历知之甚少。关注性别认同发展和自我接受的个体过程，我们采访了9名来自北美的LGBTQ+高等教育学生(年龄在19 - 29岁之间)，他们毕业于土耳其的一所学术型高中。我们特别研究了他们的思维方式、压力应对策略以及可能使他们自我接受LGBTQ+身份的环境因素。研究结果表明，LGBTQ+群体的心理健康是个体因素(如应对策略)、结构性因素(如恐同社会文化环境)和背景因素共同作用的结果。研究结果还表明，由于高中同伴的支持、自由的课程和课堂讨论以及青少年时期获取信息的机会，在思维、元认知和区分身份标签方面的复杂性和反思性是有好处的。
{"title":"Giftedness, Gender Identities, and Self-Acceptance: A Retrospective Study on LGBTQ+ Postsecondary Students","authors":"C. O. Lo, Shun-Fu Hu, H. Sungur, Ching-Hui Lin","doi":"10.1177/00169862211029681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211029681","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent position statement, the National Association of Gifted Children argued the importance of providing equitable treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other sexual and gender minority individuals (LGBTQ+) gifted youth to help them maximize their potential. However, there are very few empirical studies focusing on the intersection of giftedness and gender identities. Little is known regarding these students’ experience at, and outside of, school. Focusing on the individual process of gender identity development and self-acceptance, we interviewed nine LGBTQ+ postsecondary students in North America (aged between 19 and 29 years) who are graduates of an academically focused high school in Turkey. In particular, we studied their ways of thinking, stress coping strategies, and environmental factors that may have enabled their self-acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities. Findings of the study show that the mental health of LGBTQ+ is a function of individual factors (e.g., coping strategies), structural factors (e.g., a homophobic sociocultural environment), and the context. The findings also indicate the benefits of complexity and reflectiveness in thinking, metacognition and the ability to separate identity labels from identities, enabled by high school peer support, liberal curriculum and classroom discussions, and access to information during adolescence.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"50 1","pages":"171 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72791542","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：