Su búsqueda
Resultados 2 recursos
-
The problem of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) student underrepresentation in gifted programs demonstrates a need to examine systemic processes, including the building of systemic capacity at the district and school levels where policies for gifted programs are formed and implemented. To examine the effects of this process on one diverse district’s gifted identification and services, we conducted 10 focus group interviews with 61 participants including gifted coordinators, teacher leaders, and gifted facilitators in the middle of a district initiative aimed at improving equitable identification and services in its gifted program. Data were analyzed using the six-phase approach of Thematic Analysis, which included (1) familiarization, (2) coding, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and then (6) writing our report. Three overarching themes emerged from the in-depth analysis: (1) building systemic capacity, (2) shifting conceptions of giftedness, and (3) equitable identification practices and inclusive programming. Findings indicated the importance of systemic capacity building in teachers for improved CLED student identification into gifted programs and services. Essentially, building systemic capacity and shifting conceptions of giftedness share a reciprocal relationship in leading to more equitable gifted identification practices and inclusive programming. Moreover, implementing flexible and nuanced policy that takes into consideration school climate and culture is critical to building systemic capacity while working toward goals of equity. Recommendations are provided for researchers and practitioners based on these major findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)
-
How we view young children matters. It influences ways we interact with, respond to, and predict outcomes of young children’s learning. We may think about the image of young children through a metaphor of lenses—with what lenses are children viewed? Are they seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, or as competent and curious human beings, ready to explore the world around them? If children are viewed as gifted, or as having potential for advanced or accelerated work, does that change the teaching of and interactions with these children? In this chapter, we focus on young children (ages 3–8, preschool–third grade), excluding, for the most part, the development of infants and toddlers. Preschool-age children enter the world of academia expected to build kindergarten readiness skills. Many preschoolers already demonstrate mastery of academics, and show the need for a different type of preschool curriculum and instruction. However, others come to preschool from homes where English is not spoken, or from homes where parents did not have enough money or time to provide enriched learning experiences (e.g., travel, visits to the library, campouts in the woods). Do teachers view students who can already read and write as more intelligent or more gifted than those who have not yet been exposed to the types of experiences that would nourish and develop literacy and mathematical thinking? How do teachers view young children who are ahead of their peers—gifted, precocious, or advanced? How do those labels impact the teachers’ interactions and expectations of those students? Views and beliefs about people matter. Having high expectations for children impacts their academic achievement, and stereotype threat can influence achievement (Steele, 2011). Stereotype threat occurs when people are or feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their identities. In the case of gifted students, who have identities that relate to their intelligence, the way they view their own talents and intelligence impacts not only their achievement, but their willingness to attack challenging problems and grow (Dweck, 2006). Knowing how we think about children impacts our interactions and ultimately their outcomes; therefore, we must be cautious not to project stereotypes, biases, or labels on children. Instead, we must address all children with the intent to learn about them, to connect what they know with new knowledge, and to provide learning contexts that maximize their growth opportunities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)
Explorar
Tipo de recurso
- Book Section (1)
- Journal Article (1)
Año de publicación
-
Entre 2000 y 2026
(2)
-
Entre 2010 y 2019
(1)
- 2018 (1)
-
Entre 2020 y 2026
(1)
- 2021 (1)
-
Entre 2010 y 2019
(1)