Problem 3: giftedness

Question 1

what are the 5 perspectives on giftedness

Answer 1

-High intellectual abilities: succes in all academic domains + stays gifted whole life
-clinical perspective: gifted children are more emotionally fragile thus need more support, but do show superior social functioning (mixed findings)
-creative/schoolhouse giftedness: ?
-giftedness due to extra work
-(no) ability: giftedness due to practice + access to opportunities

Question 2

giftedness:

Answer 2

-ability + effort put into development of gift
-appropriate teaching is needed for development
-creative performers (musicians) vs producers (playwrights)

Question 3

types of education for gifted students

Answer 3

-enrichment (expand knowledge with more material)
-acceleration (grade skipping, early entrance, big fish little pond effect –> less self-esteem for children that accelerated)
-psychosocial coaching
-selective institutions: schools for gifted children (v intense)

Question 4

2016, Kroesbergen et al:
-aim
-hypothesis
-method

Answer 4

-aim: compare psychological wellbeing of gifted vs non-gifted children (academic achievement + reasoning ability)
-hypothesis: difference but in what direction
-method: questionnaires, measuring 3 variables
–teacher nomination
–creativity level
–non-verbal intelligence/reasoning
-wellbeing: self-concept + psychological problems

Question 5

2016, kroes bergen et al:
-results

Answer 5

-no difference: scholastic competence, behavioural conduct and school enjoyment
-difference: gifted children have lower self worth & social acceptance + fewer internalising problems
-creative gifted children: lower wellbeing than non-creative gifted children
-teacher nomination: higher psych wellbeing for nominated children
-achievement: gifted achievers have better psych wellbeing than underachievers

Question 6

2016 kroesbergen et al
-limitations

Answer 6

-small sample size
-very strict selection criteria
-IQ and creativity test had v strong visual components (visual ability could become confounding variable)
-children were young
-descriptive and cross sectional data

Question 7

2010, steenbergen-hu & moon:
-aim
-method

Answer 7

aim:
-how does acceleration affect gifted students’ academic achievement and socio-emotional development
-differences between content-based vs grade based acceleration?
-moderators associated with effects of acceleration
method: meta-analysis

Question 8

2010, steenbergen-hu & moon:
-results

Answer 8

-positive effect on academic achievement and socio-emotional development
-moderators: not really any (only 4/33 variables had modern effect size)

Question 9

2010 steenbergen-hu & moon
-limitations

Answer 9

-relied too much on self-report
-different definitions for acceleration
-coding wasn’t entirely reliable
-no sensitivity analysis
-left out info that could have been included

Question 10

2009, Hoogeveen et al:
-aim
-method

Answer 10

-aim: assess self-concept and social status in accelerated and non-accelerated students
-social status = popular, rejected, ignored (neither), controversial (liked most and least), average
-method: 2 questionnaires at 3 points in time

Question 11

2009, hoogeveen et al:
-results

Answer 11

-no difference in general and total self-concept
-gifted children: positive effect in academic self concept, negative effect in social self-concept (concerning same sex relations)
-more accelerated students in the reject group = lower social status

Question 12

2009, hoogeveen et al:
-limitations

Answer 12

-possible self-report bias
-mainly studies from US –> generalisability
-high rate of rejected gifted students
-too complex relationship between status and self-concept and acceleration