annotated bibliography
GIFTED CHILD TODAY January 2020
46
Feature
Abstract: Using the Frame of Reference lens developed by Marsh, this article explains how elementary-age gifted boys construct their self-perceptions as learners by comparing their academic abilities with those of their peers. Understanding giftedness defined as a social construct, this article discusses an ethnographic study that examines gifted boys’ self-perceptions and their teachers’ perceptions of them as learners. Data collected from observations and interviews are analyzed to discuss the study’s findings that are explored through three themes. First, the participants want their teachers to understand that although they value their gifted identities, they still have academic needs for which they need help. Second, gifted boys believe their classroom behaviors are often misunderstood. Third, the participants want a voice about the curriculum assigned to them. These findings conclude by examining implications for teachers to address the perceptions of boys as students in their classrooms.
Keywords: giftedness, self-concept, Frame of Reference theory, social construct
Purpose of the Study I embarked on this study through
my own self-perceptions as a teacher, an administrator, and a parent. During my professional experience in public education, I carefully balanced these three roles to serve every student I had the privilege of teaching and leading. Through successes and failures, I have learned that
being an educator invokes a personal commitment of delving into theories and practices to enrich classroom instruction and provide opportunities for student learning and development. Being a parent of a gifted boy has given me another level of insight into how classroom theories and practices affect students. These new insights include the contributions of social and emotional well-being to academic and school achievement. Because of my experiences, this study is an integral part of my professional and personal biography. Having a gifted son, I quickly learned that I lacked the training in how to implement educational programs and services that are inclusive of the social and emotional aspects of many gifted children. I learned
that I did not give enough attention to the importance of connecting content to the social and emotional growth of gifted students. Previously, I believed that they, as highly intellectual individuals, took care of and regulated their own internal needs. The recognition of my limited knowledge about giftedness and the desire to understand how to improve instruction for gifted students influenced the purpose of this study: to examine how giftedness is perceived by boys within the school environment.
In this article, I suggest that teachers who emphasize gifted students’ intellectual potential without regard for their socio-emotional connections to learning lack understanding about how
students’ perceptions of their academic achievements influence how they feel about themselves (Bailey, 2011; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Noting the scarcity of in-depth studies that include elementary-age males as participants (Pinxten et al., 2015),
880579GCTXXX10.1177/1076217519880579Gifted Child TodayGifted Child Today research-article2019
“Ask Me and I Will Tell You” Gifted Boys’ Perceptions of Self and School Jessica Watts, MEd1
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519880579. From 1Oklahoma State University. Address correspondence to: Jessica Watts, MEd, College of Education, Health, & Aviation, Oklahoma State University, 260 Willard Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA; email: jachitw@okstate.edu. For Article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s Web site at sagepub.com/journals-permissions Copyright © 2019 The Author(s)
“ Marsh’s Frame
of Reference theory can serve as a
model for understanding the
development of elementary-age gifted boys’ self-
concepts.”
47
vol. 43 ■ no. 1 GIFTED CHILD TODAY
I conducted an ethnographic study involving 10 gifted male students in a public suburban elementary school (Grades 3-5) to shed light on these students’ unique and personal perspectives through the theoretical lens of Herbert W. Marsh’s (1990) Frame of Reference theory. Understanding my role as a researcher, I committed myself to allowing the student participants to share their school experiences and report the findings from their perspectives. The findings and implications discussed in this article express the significance of teachers in helping gifted boys develop healthy self-perceptions of themselves at school.
Literature Review Socially Constructed Definition of Giftedness
All of the participants in this study were identified as gifted and talented (GT) using an intelligence test and a matrix measuring specific academic abilities. To further my understanding of gifted identification as it is defined by the participating district, I explored Pfeiffer’s (2012) description of giftedness that stresses intelligence scores do not tell educators everything about the intelligence of a child. He explained giftedness as not only defined by an intelligence score, but also is a socially constructed concept. He stressed that individuals can be gifted in one area or another and it is difficult to identify giftedness in such concrete terms (Pfeiffer, 2012). Examining giftedness through a socially constructed lens helps teachers deepen their understandings about the exceptional intelligence and behaviors that are above and beyond the modes of thinking for most people. While there is no argument against an intelligence test as a measure of cognitive ability, Pfeiffer (2012) and Olszewski-Kubilius and Thomson (2015) focus on other components such as creativity, independence, and sociality in the classroom to measure overall ability of high-achieving students. Similar findings by Baum, Schader, and Hébert (2014) noted several other socially constructed factors that support superior talents and cultivate growth in students: a psychologically safe classroom, tolerance for various levels of emotional maturity, and positive teacher–student relationships. Additional criteria noted by Baudson and Preckel (2016) included creativity, social skills, independence, individual motivation, and high verbal skills. In this study, the participating school district’s definition of giftedness, which incorporates intelligence measurements and a matrix of performances and behaviors that demonstrate qualities that are superior to same- age peers within the school contexts, guided the inquiry. These qualities, as described in the next section, influence teachers’ perceptions of gifted boys in their classrooms.
Influence of Gender Role on Teachers’ Perceptions Bailey’s (2011) examination of gifted students and their ego
development illustrated that teachers are often trained to emphasize intellectual potential rather than the influence of emotional development on learning. Bailey’s (2011) study found teachers held gendered assumptions that influenced their instructional approaches to addressing the academic, social, and
emotional needs of gifted boys. For example, Preckel, Baudson, Krolak-Schwerdt, and Glock (2015) engaged in a rigorous mixed design study to investigate whether stereotypes about gifted students affected teachers’ attitudes toward their academic achievement versus assumptions about their behaviors. They found teachers focused more on boys’ negative behaviors than their positive ones (Preckel et al., 2015). In another study, teachers’ expectations about how students were expected to behave were based on their academic ability rather than their social maturity (Hamilton & Roberts, 2017). Boys demonstrated high performance in some subjects yet exhibited poorer social and behavioral skills, such as joking around and not taking learning as seriously as they were expected to; yet they were still held to high behavioral standards despite the asynchrony between the two aspects of personal and school development (Hamilton & Roberts, 2017). Finding similar analyses, another study illustrated that teachers’ misconceptions about gifted students sometimes increased the risks for unwanted student behaviors because teachers lacked understanding about how to teach these learners (Baudson & Preckel, 2016). Farrell’s (2016) study also suggested the importance of teachers adopting pedagogy that provided appropriate spaces for boys to learn in ways that interested and engaged them by utilizing their personal learning preferences. Understanding how boys prefer to learn can help teachers design more inclusive and academically appropriate curriculum (Legewie & DiPrete, 2012).
Gifted Boys’ Self-Perceptions Within the Social and Academic Context
Händel, Vialle, and Ziegler’s (2013) study described how gifted boys perceived themselves within their social and academic environments. Peers admired their classmates who had high achievements in extracurricular activities but not in academic endeavors. Students who excelled in math and science were viewed as more intelligent than their peers but less socially adept than others who were gifted athletically or in foreign languages. They noted, “These results are of importance because they show that successful peers are characterized differently as a function of the school subject in which their high achievement is attained” (Händel, Vialle, & Ziegler, 2013, p. 109). Peer acceptance’s influence on self-perceptions of highly intelligent boys is also supported by another study. Rentzsch, Schutz, and Schroder-Abe (2011) sought to understand if being labeled as gifted attributed to more social acceptance and increased self-esteem. These researchers found that high achievement was admired by peers, but only if gifted students showed a conscious level of modesty about it (Rentzsch et al., 2011). A study by Gallagher (2015) found peer’s social acceptance of gifted students decreased when gifted students flaunted their academic superiority and when they displayed various immature behaviors. This study also illuminated the importance of gifted students not wanting to be out-casted by their peers; therefore, they exhibited less intellectual capacity than they possessed because they tried to fit in with their average ability peers (Gallagher, 2015).
48
January 2020GIFTED CHILD TODAY
Conceptual Framework Marsh (1990) and Williams and Montgomery (1995) articulated
that self-concept development has long been recognized as critical to understanding the potentialities of academic achievement and their relationship to educational considerations for high-ability students. Marsh’s (1990) Frame of Reference theory can serve as a model for understanding the development of gifted boys’ self- concepts. Marsh (1990) developed a model that explained two comparisons students often make to define their self-concepts as learners among their peers: internal academic and external nonacademic comparisons, or frames of reference. According to this theory, “Students concurrently compare both their individual academic achievements across subject areas (internal comparisons) and their ability levels relative to others within their learning environment (external comparisons)” (Williams & Montgomery, 1995, p. 401). The development of internal and external comparisons is common between math and verbal skills and consist of students’ feelings about their potential to perform well in math as compared with their abilities in other subject areas; thereby, influencing students’ academic and social dispositions (Pinxten et al., 2015; Shaalvik & Rankin, 1990). For example, students who believed they performed poorly in math, most likely believed they were good readers. Shaalvik and Rankin (1990) found that students compared their self-perceptions as learners with their peers within a similar frame of reference to judge their own academic abilities. In addition, Swiatek (2004) understood Marsh’s (1990) Frame of Reference theory by describing gifted students in this way:
how a student might have a poor self-concept in a particular academic area despite strong academic performance in that area. For an achieving gifted student, external comparisons are likely to strengthen self- concept, as the student’s academic performance compares favorably to the performance of others. Internal comparisons, however, are expected to weaken self- concept in areas in which the student perceives himself or herself to be relatively weak. (p. 104)
An examination of internal and external comparisons is essential to understanding elementary students’ development of academic and personal self-concept (Pinxten et al., 2015).
Research Methods and Procedures A 4-month ethnographic study involving elementary-age
male participants was conducted during the spring 2017 school semester (February-May). These overarching research questions guided the study:
1. What are the particular challenges that gifted boys in elementary school face?
2. How do gifted boys conceptualize the social aspects of school?
3. How do gifted boys perceive themselves as students?
Research Site The research site was a PK-5 elementary school with
approximately 600 students. This elementary school has had a long-standing designation as a Title I school with about 80% of the student population served by the free and reduced federal lunch program during any given school year. During the year in which the research occurred, this school served a diverse population with approximately 50% of students identified as White and 27% as Hispanic with 11 different languages spoken among the student population. Nearly half of the students experienced low-socioeconomic home lives because their parents were enrolled as either half-time or full-time students at the local university, therefore, making it difficult for parents to make ends meet when juggling both work and school while raising their families. The other half of the student population experienced low-socioeconomic living conditions because of other factors such as lack of household income or stable housing.
The GT program at this school served about 60 students in second through fifth grades; this enrollment was low in comparison with other elementary school sites in the same district that served about 100 students each in their gifted programs. Qualified students attended the school’s pull-out program 3 to 4 days/week for 40-min sessions. General education teachers were also expected to address individual academic needs within their classrooms as deemed appropriate by students’ achievement levels.
Participants The participants met the following criteria: (a) male students
enrolled in Grades 3-5, (b) identified as GT by the school district’s evaluation measures, and (c) enrolled in the GT program at the school site for at least 1 year or more prior to the study. To identify students for services in specific academic areas, the school district used these instruments: Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), teacher rating scales, a portfolio, a self- directed student project illustrating innovation and creativity, and classroom assessments including curriculum unit tests, benchmark tests, and process grades. Teachers referred students who demonstrated consistent academic or creative skills above grade level for the GT program beginning as early as first grade. All of these assessments were submitted to the district’s GT coordinator who is responsible for reviewing assessments and enrollment into the program. Qualifying students needed to have an overall intelligence score of 120 or higher as measured by the CogAT or a score of 120 or higher on one or more CogAT subtests. They also needed to score a minimum of 40 points on the district-designed matrix for gifted identification.
Of the 19 students who met all criteria for participation in this research, 10 boys volunteered to participate. I assigned undisclosed pseudonyms to the 10 boys who volunteered to be a part of my study. Their parents and guardians provided written permission allowing me to observe them in their classrooms and during unstructured school times, such as lunch
49
vol. 43 ■ no. 1 GIFTED CHILD TODAY
and recess. They also permitted their child to participate in semi-structured, individual interviews lasting approximately 20 min each. Five of the participants were enrolled in third grade, one participant was enrolled in fourth grade, and four participants were fifth graders.
Six of the participants were White, three were White and of Hispanic Origin, and one was Native American. Two of the participants spoke Spanish and English and another participant spoke Arabic and English (see Table 1).
Data Collection Data were collected from structured and unstructured
observations and individual interviews with the participants. Informal jotting and field notes were the methods used to collect data from 32 observations lasting from 20 to 60 min in the general education classrooms, specials rotations which engaged students in extracurricular activities, the GT pull-out program meeting times, and during numerous unstructured times such as in the hallways and during lunch times. One semi-structured individual interview was held with each participant during the school day in an available classroom where students felt familiar and comfortable with their surroundings. Each interview lasted approximately 20–30 min and all participants were asked the same questions, but subsequent questions varied based on their responses to the standard questions (see the appendix for the interview questions).
Data Analysis Using the Frame of Reference theory as a lens to analyze
data, I used priori coding to discover themes threaded throughout the observation field notes and interview transcripts. To maintain credibility, I encouraged the participants to
converse with me freely during interviews and asked them to clarify certain terms, such as social plains and slower learners, as well as their personal perspectives about themselves and school rather than relying on my own interpretation of their dialogue. Lincoln and Guba (1986) suggest, “Credibility serves as an analog to internal validity” (pp. 76–77). Acknowledging that my previous work as an administrator provided me with understandings about how school functions for gifted students at this school site, I remained alert to my own reflexivity by depending on the boys to interpret situations or dialogue that occurred during my observations. I was always aware of my obligation to establish trustworthiness through cross- examination of observation and interview data. I coded my reflections into themes to ensure I shared the perspectives of my participants and not showcase what I wanted educators to know based on my interpretation of the issues facing the boys. Therefore, I maintained written fieldnotes and jottings that included rich descriptions of the settings, activities, participants’ behaviors, and recounts of conversations with all of the participants (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1998).
Findings The participants’ feelings about themselves in academic
settings, the social contexts of school, and how they feel about school emerged as three central themes to my study.
Overgeneralization of Gifted Abilities The first key theme was the participants’ feelings of
embarrassment when they struggled with understanding certain subjects. The participants believed teachers expected them to grasp every subject easily because of their gifted identities— demonstrating a pedagogical myth that gifted students are exceptional in all academic subjects. Dustin, age 9, shared that
Table 1. Participants’ Background Information
Participants’ pseudonyms Grade level Age (years) Ethnicity
Dustin 3 9 White
Henry 3 8 White
Nick 3 9 White/Hispanic
Ryan 3 9 White/Hispanic
Wyatt 3 9 White
Leo 4 10 Native American
Evan 5 10 White
Gavin 5 11 White/Hispanic
Joseph 5 11 White
50
January 2020GIFTED CHILD TODAY
he frequently gave up and felt poorly about himself because he struggled in math. He divulged, “I don’t think teachers think I need extra help with math because I am usually do pretty good with other subjects. I don’t like math.” The tone of his voice became softer after I asked him how he felt about himself when he worked on his math assignments. “I don’t know, I’m not very good at it, and that doesn’t make me feel good.” Watching his body language change from alertness during our interview to a withdrawal-like state when he talked about how he felt about math demonstrated to me the importance of not overgeneralizing the abilities of gifted children. Other participants also expressed frustration, inadequacy, shame, and dislike for subjects in which they were not confident. Gavin, age 11, attributed his distaste for math to his perceived lack of mathematical skills. Gavin said, “I can’t think of a time I really liked math. I am just not very good at it.” Looking away from me as if embarrassed to speak, he continued, “I don’t think that I am as intelligent as my teachers think I am because math is hard for me.” Leo, age 10, shared similar feelings about his writing abilities: “I hate to write. I don’t know if that’s because it’s hard for me or because I would rather do something I know I am good at.”
Although the students acknowledged their academic weaknesses for which they desired help, they adamantly stated they did not want teachers offering them guidance during class time because their peers would notice their assumed incompetence—creating a fear of losing their gifted identities. Henry added, “I know I am smart and I like to work by myself. I don’t usually ask the teacher for help. I will just ask my parents to help me at home.” Henry’s response illuminated the importance for the participants to maintain their academic status and their need for teachers to find discrete ways of helping them with their academic challenges. If maintaining both academic status and receiving discrete teacher assistance was not achievable, they would rather miss out obtaining academic skills than risk the demise of their intellectual status. “It makes me feel good that other kids know I’m smart,” smiled Dustin. When Leo was asked about how he felt other students perceived him, he said, “It means a lot that they think I am smart. It’s very hard to get into the gifted class. I like that kids think I can do anything.”
Self-Concept and “Social Plains” A crucial second theme was the boys’ personal connections
to the social aspects of the classroom, specifically how the participants perceived their behaviors compared with that of their peers. When I observed the social aspects of the classroom, I gained more understanding about why the boys felt discouraged when their behaviors were misunderstood as insubordination. I witnessed several of the participants corrected for “misbehaviors” during every observation. These misbehaviors included getting out of their seats to seek the teachers’ help, meandering about the room as they waited for their partners to finish their work, talking to themselves while working, and putting their heads on their desks during lectures.
During a one 30-min observation, Nick, age 9, was called out a total of seven times for not looking at the board, getting out of his seat, and putting his head down on his desk. However, Nick raised his hand multiple times to answer questions, but he was never called upon to participate. He later told me,
I get bored waiting for the teacher to let me answer questions. This girl in my class—whenever the teacher asks us a question, she always know the answer first. I think that makes her the smartest in the class. I don’t feel like I am the smartest because I get into trouble a lot.
During another observation, Joseph, age 11, was instructed several times to sit down and finish his work, when in fact, he was waiting for his partner to complete his part of the assignment before they could move on. “Working with a partner that doesn’t cooperate with you or doesn’t think like you gets frustrating,” admitted Joseph. Furthermore, Matthew, age 11, was directed to return to his seat and complete his assignment when he joined other students who were circled together and talking. I observed that the other students had barely touched their assignments yet were allowed to be standing and talking to each other without being asked to return to their seats. I asked the boys about these incidents during their interviews, and they reported they lacked academic challenge, were exasperated from working with peers who the boys perceived to not be at their academic level, or they finished with their work and needed creative explorations of work or reading time. Matthew commented, “I prefer people talk when I am working because it helps me focus and calms me down for some reason.” As Matthew was talking, I paused to recognize that it had never occurred to me that students, especially gifted boys like him, whose minds can concentrate on multiple things at once might prefer background noise to enhance their focus on their studies. When it was too quiet in his classroom, he admitted he talked to himself to help remain focused on the assignments. Joseph confessed, “When the teacher is talking about something I already know how to do, I talk.” Participants also felt unfairly redirected because their peers engaged in similar behaviors without receiving consequences. Evan, age 10, argued, “Fairness does not necessarily mean the same to a teacher as it does to a kid. How is me making quiet noises to myself any different than everyone else talking when they are not supposed to?” Not seeing their behaviors more different than their peers’ actions demonstrated their attunement to a sense of justice, or fairness, and felt consistent expectations should apply across the board. The boys felt their intelligence created a different standard for expected behaviors than the expectations of other students in the classroom. In other words, teachers’ behavioral expectations of them were perceived to be as high as their academic expectations. According to some studies, “Many boys evaluate policy by its implementation rather than the fairness of the behavior it asks for” (Cleveland, 2011, p. 92). Nine out of 10 boys, however, felt their peers did not treat them any
51
vol. 43 ■ no. 1 GIFTED CHILD TODAY
differently because they were gifted. Sadly though, this was not the case for Evan. Evan revealed,
I have pretty much zero friends who care. The only people I can really talk to are always being jerks, and they always find things to talk about themselves. Social plains are different. (It’s hard to feel more mature than your peers). We should do something about social plains (where this student felt he fit in socially and developmentally as compared to his peers within the classroom environment). They suck. Other kids are not socially on my level.
I concluded that Evan wanted to feel his teachers were aware of the importance of social acceptance on the development of self-perceptions. These gifted students were keenly aware of their assumed place within the classroom environment, and it was vital for them to feel included and necessary within the classroom community. Reflecting on behaviors like the ones mentioned sheds lights on the importance of designing a rigorous and engaging curriculum, making the gifted boys in this study feel more included rather than excluded through constant redirection of misperceived behaviors.
Gifted Boys’ Perceptions About Curriculum Third, the participants recounted a missing instructional
component from their school experience—allowing them to have an opinion when choosing relevant and engaging instructional practices. All participants desired to be academically challenged, and the selection of rigorous curriculum related to their personal learning styles was essential to their self-concepts Henry, age 8, acknowledged, “Sometimes I would like to learn more and have the teachers challenge us more I like to work on projects and learn how things work.” They craved opportunities to learn concepts using student- driven instruction and investigative methods rather than deficit- based approaches to pedagogy. Commonly used teaching methods such as oral discussions, worksheets, textbook assignments, and homework reinforcing rote memorization were uninteresting to them. Ryan, age 9, stated, “I am usually ahead of everybody in class and get bored waiting to learn something new. I would actually like to skip a grade. Maybe that would help.” The participants opposed the seemingly obvious instructional methods geared toward “slower learners,” as stated by Matthew, Evan, and Ryan, and rendered them pointless because they already knew the material. The boys’ end-goals were not to learn from instructional activities but to finish them quickly so they could pursue independent learning time or reading. “I would rather read, build objects, research topics on the Internet, or pretty much do anything but worksheets,” retorted Wyatt, age 9. The boys divulged feelings of boredom because they felt teachers did not care enough about them to put forth the effort to stimulate their minds academically. Ninety
percent of the boys confessed a lack of hope that school could be a motivating and exciting place to learn. Gavin believed his educational experience should be a place that encouraged and challenged him, but was losing hope that school would ever meet his academic needs:
It’s human nature to survive. We have learned to survive by being with other people.
School is not necessary because we can learn from others. We were born with an education to some degree. We know how to learn from each other and survive. As long as we can survive and get along in the world, I don’t see why we need a formal education.
Gavin did not like feeling this way but was not sure how to tell teachers he needed more from them to make his educational experience more worthwhile. All participants expressed defeat when divulging they did not feel like they had control over their academics. They could not recall a time when they had been asked their opinions about their classwork or felt their opinions mattered at all. “We have no control to change what things we learn,” believed Evan. Not allowing students to have instructional choices devalues them as human beings and negates the purpose of education—to help all children reach their academic and developmental potential. Gavin noted, “I’m not generally a fan of school because of the way we have to learn. We do not get to choose topics we want to learn about and study in the ways that work for us.”
An example of such a classroom was the boys’ GT class. In this class, students were allowed to talk to one another while working. I observed the participants participate in this class and compared their behaviors with the ones in the general education classes. They smiled more and appeared more relaxed when they were around other kids like them. They were fully engaged in projects and inquiry-based learning. During one observation, the fifth grade participants were planning their upcoming GT field trip in which they were going to take a public bus on a scenic tour of the popular places within their city. All of the boys told me that they like being in the GT class; Gavin indicated, “We are freer to explore our interests and enjoy not having to spend time on concepts we already know.” Wyatt reported that he enjoys attending this class because “We get to build rockets. I like to learn how things work.” In addition, Leo and Dustin expressed their love of building things and enjoyed working with their hands and said it kept them engaged in learning. Leo remarked, “We get to make projects and do lots of fun stuff like coding and building golf courses.” Similarly, Henry replied, “We get to create and build things.”
Conclusively, educators lacked an understanding of how the consideration personal learning preferences could have enhanced their motivation for learning. It was not enough to be considered gifted among their classmates. The boys possessed a desire to learn at their own academic levels with input about
52
January 2020GIFTED CHILD TODAY
which instructional strategies engaged them, encouraged them to achieve more, and valued them as students in the learning community.
The analyses lead to discussion for instructional implications that focuses on the importance of supporting gifted boys’ self-concepts through the curriculum and social aspects of the classroom.
Discussions for Teachers Analyzing my data through the lens of the Frame of
Reference theory explores gifted boys’ plights to feel equally important to their peers and value their educational experiences in elementary school (Cooper, 2012; Kanevsky, 2011). My analysis suggests three key findings from this ethnographic work. First, these participants desired their teachers to understand that although they highly value their gifted identities, their gifted identification does not exclude them from experiencing some academic and social challenges. In some cases, these challenges caused low self-perceptions because participants compared their challenges with their peers’ abilities to complete work with little effort (Coleman, 2001). Second, the participants felt teachers misunderstood certain classroom behaviors, influencing unfair treatment, as compared with peers with similar behaviors. Third, the participants wished to have a say about their assigned curriculum, thereby experiencing more engagement, connection to learning, and feelings of value and worth as highly capable students. Using the lens of the Frame of Reference theory illuminates the understanding that gifted boys’ self-perceptions as learners are influenced by their social and emotional school experiences (Parker, Marsh, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2013; Williams & Montgomery, 1995). Classrooms should be affirming spaces that help them feel respected as members or the learning community rather than devalued from the educational process (Cleveland, 2011).
After the participants shared their thoughts and feelings about school and themselves, I asked them was there something they wished their teachers knew about them as students in their classes. Their responses were of no surprise. Ryan quickly answered, “I would want them to know that I am usually ahead of everybody in class and can solve problems easily and prefer to read.” Matthew responded similarly: “I want them to know that we want more challenging things to do in class. But I don’t really see that changing for next year. I just think they will treat everyone the same way, as always, next year.” Five of the boys wished that teachers knew that while they wanted more activities that challenge their level of intellect, they also want to be treated as equals to their peers. In other words, the participants wanted their behaviors to be judged for what they might be representing: a need that is left to be met. As Evan expressed, “It’s like my past follows me, and if we got into trouble in third grade or some grade, then it follows me (to the next grade), and I don’t get a fair chance.”
The participants’ unmet needs included the feelings of being valued as academic learners through careful planning of lessons that incorporate personal learning styles and high levels of rigor.
Wyatt shared, “I like to create and build. I wish I could do that more.”
Some teachers are trained to design lessons for students who lack academic skills producing a deficit-based approach to pedagogy that leads little room for gifted learners to be challenged (Bristol, 2015; Kanevsky, 2011 Acee et al., 2010). Rigorous academic expectations show gifted boys they are valued as exceptional learners (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Gifted boys feel a sense of pride and personal fulfillment in who they are as individuals when they are being academically challenged. The participants also needed teachers to connect the subject content to their social and emotional needs. According to the American Psychological Association (2017), being accepted by peers is just as important to gifted students as their high academic achievement. Students like Evan and Joseph need teachers to create safe classroom spaces for students to be themselves and work with similar-minded peers during collaborative assignments (Saunders-Stewart, Walker, & Shore, 2013). Evan admitted,
Sometimes when I get stuck working on projects with other people, it makes the work a lot harder than it has to be. Everyone wants to talk or make fun of me because I try to help them solve the problems.
Along those lines, Cleveland (2011) suggests that classrooms need to be spaces that are affirming and helps boys feel respected as members of the learning community, regardless of their levels of intelligence.
With these findings in mind, I referred to The American Psychological Association’s (2017) Top Principles from Psychology for PreK-12 Creative, Talented, and Gifted Students’ Teaching and Learning from the Center for Psychology in Schools and Education. This resource provides educational suggestions for helping gifted students build healthy self-concepts as well as information regarding rationales, methods, and implications for how to address gifted students social, emotional, and learning needs. For example, teachers may help their students develop a positive growth mind-set by associating their successes with effort rather than their intelligence, emphasize the significance of diverse perspectives about the curriculum, and “channel enthusiasm into solving problems and avoid the tendency to see highly creative students as disruptive” (American Psychological Association, 2017, p. 19). This resource helps teachers understand how gifted students perceive themselves as learners within the classroom context and provides strategies for teachers to address their academic endeavors while maintaining support for their gifted students’ unique personal needs. Principle 1 provides an overview of the influence of students’ self- perceptions about their cognitive ability on their performance (American Psychological Association, 2017). It explains that when students have opportunities to foster healthy self-concepts at school, they will experience academic and emotional growth (American Psychological Association, 2017). The contents include relevant and applicable ideas for teachers to consider when teaching students of high-cognitive abilities. In addition,
53
vol. 43 ■ no. 1 GIFTED CHILD TODAY
this resource can support teachers by demonstrating how to provide challenging curriculum, implement strategies that promote creativity and discovery, and utilize their gifted students’ high problem-solving skills within the classroom (American Psychological Association, 2017).
Study Limitations This research was conducted at one suburban elementary
school with 10 male students. These participants were, for the most part, either White and/or not of Hispanic origin. Although it did not appear as those background information or ethnicities played a role in influencing the findings, subsequent studies would support the generalizability of the findings by including additional male students in more elementary school settings of other ethnicities. As few prior studies include a direct focus on the self-perceptions of young male learners, more studies about boys’ self-perceptions are needed to further validate my findings (Preckel et al., 2015). The strengths and significance of this study reside the participants’ voices about their schooling experiences and their influence on self-perceptions. However, as the findings rely on students’ perceptions, they cannot be validated with sources such as achievement data or other school reporting data. Again, additional studies similar in nature would serve to strengthen the findings and support the importance of understanding how students’ self-perceptions as learners can have a critical influence on classroom pedagogy.
Conclusion This study examines gifted boys’ school and self-
perceptions, positioning their perspectives with contemporary studies (Bailey, 2011; Hamilton & Roberts, 2017; Händel et al., 2013; Preckel et al., 2015) on teaching elementary gifted male students in public schools. These students’ self-perspectives influenced their social and emotional health. Analyzing observation field notes and participant interviews through the Frame of Reference lens illustrates how the participants’ self-perceptions as learners were formed within their social, academic, and emotional school contexts. Three findings emerged from my ethnographic work. First, the participants wanted their teachers to know that while they value their own gifted identification, their high cognitive abilities do not exclude them from experiencing academic and social challenges. Second, the participants felt their classroom behaviors were often misunderstood as insubordination, when actually they represented neglected academic or social needs. Third, the participants wished to have a voice about their assigned curriculum, thus experiencing more engagement and connection to learning. Analyses of these findings prompts teachers to evaluate gifted boys’ self-perceptions as learners, thereby helping them implement inclusive and rigorous academic, social, and emotional pedagogy for these students.
This study suggests the importance for teachers to open their minds to gifted boys’ self-perceptions as learners and to give students opportunity to be heard. It is without questions that
teachers carry the responsibility to design state standards– aligned curriculum. However, providing students with opportunities to give input in meeting the required curriculum is a critical one to consider (Lamont, 2012). Kanevsky (2011) contends that students offer insightful information about effective instructional practices when they participate with their teachers in designing curriculum. Equally significant, gifted students should feel valued and included in the curriculum that incorporates personal learning preferences, high levels of rigor, and maintains respect for individuality and the social plains that exist among their peers. Noting the scarcity of similar studies including elementary-age students who are interviewed and given opportunities to provide personal reflections that contribute to research (Pinxten et al., 2015), I propose that more educational studies similar to this one should provide young students opportunities to give input about their instructional, social, and emotional needs at school.
Gavin brilliantly summarized his perspective by saying,
Being gifted means we’re born with a different learning mindset. We naturally want to learn more because we can comprehend more. But, we still want to be treated like other kids in our class, and we want to know what we say about what we are learning matters.
Gavin’s remark reminds us all never to forget that students want to be children who are valued for who they are as unique members of a classroom family.
Appendix Individual Interview Questions
1. Describe yourself (Tell me about yourself, i.e., how are you and what grade are you enrolled in). What kinds of things do you like to do when you are not at school (inside look into what interests students)?
2. What kinds of things do you not like to do when you are at school?
3. What is your favorite subject? Why? 4. What are your favorite things to do at school? Why? 5. What are your least favorite things to do at school? Why? 6. How do you learn best? 7. What is your best memory of your school experience? 8. What challenges or struggles do you face at school, if any? 9. Do you like being in the gifted program? If so, what do
you like about it? If not, what do you not like about it? 10. What do you think it means to be considered gifted at
school? 11. If there was something you wished your teachers knew
about you as a student in their class, what would it be? Why?
Conflict of Interest The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
54
January 2020GIFTED CHILD TODAY
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD Jessica Watts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-5965
References Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J.-I., Chu, H.-N. R., & Kim, M., . . .
The Boredom Research Group. (2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 12-27. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002
American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2017). Top 20 Principles from psychology for preK-12 creative, talented, and gifted students’ teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/teaching-learning/top-twenty- principles.aspx
Bailey, C. L. (2011). An examination of the relationships between ego development, Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration, and the behavioral characteristics of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 208-222. doi:10.1177/0016986211412180
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teacher’s conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement- relevant dimensions. Gifted Children Quarterly, 60, 212-225. doi:10.1177/0016986216647115
Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strength-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 311-327. doi:10.1177/0016986214547632
Bristol, T. J. (2015). Teaching boys: Towards a theory of gender-relevant pedagogy. Gender and Education, 27, 53-68. doi:10.1080/09540253.20 14.986067
Cleveland, K. P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Coleman, M. R. (2001). Surviving or thriving? 21 gifted boys with learning disabilities share their school stories. Gifted Child Today, 24, 56-63. doi:10.4219/gct-2001-538
Cooper, M. E. (2012). Everything I ever wanted to learn about teaching, I learned from gifted boys. Gifted Child Today, 35, 171-178. doi:10.1177/1076217512445991
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1998). Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Farrell, F. (2016). Learning to listen: Boys’ gender narratives—Implications for theory and practice. Education + Training, 58, 283-297. doi:10.1108/ET-06-2015-0046
Gallagher, J. J. (2015). Peer acceptance of highly gifted children in elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 51-57. doi:10.1177/0162353214565549
Hamilton, P., & Roberts, B. (2017). “Man-up, go and get an ice-pack.” Gendered stereotypes and binaries within the primary classroom: A thing of the past? Education 3 -13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years of Education, 45, 122-134. doi:10.1080/030 04279.2015.10598771
Händel, M., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2013). Student perceptions of high- achieving classmates. High Ability Studies, 24, 99-114. doi:10.1080/1359 8139.2013.843139
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 279-299. doi:10.1177/0016986211422098
Lamont, R. T. (2012). The fears and anxieties of gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 35, 271-276. doi:10.1177/1076217512455479
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2012). School context and the gender gap in educational achievement. American Sociological Review, 77, 463-485. doi:10.1177/0003122412440802
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (pp. 73-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The marsh/ shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38, 49-59. doi:10.1177/1076217514556531
Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Differential school contextual effects for math and English: Integrating the big-fish- little-pond effect and the internal/external frame of reference. Learning and Instruction, 23, 78-89. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.001
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 3-9. doi:10.1177/0734289114228192
Pinxten, M., Wouters, S., Preckel, F., Niepel, C., De Fraine, B., & Verschueren, K. (2015). The formation of academic self-concept in elementary education: A unifying model for external and internal comparisons. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 124-132. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.003
Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1160-1184. doi:10.3102/0002831215596413
Rentzsch, K., Schutz, A., & Schroder-Abe, M. (2011). Being labeled nerd: Factors that influence the social acceptance of high-achieving students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 143-168. doi:10.180/00220970903292900
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2013). How do parents and teachers of gifted students perceive group work in classrooms? Gifted and Talented International, 28, 99-109. doi:10.1080/ 15332276.2013.11678406
Shaalvik, E., & Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept: The internal/external frame of reference model and gender differences in self-concept structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 546-554.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441. doi:10.3102/003465543046003407
Swiatek, M. A. (2004). Gifted students’ self-perceptions of ability in specific subject domains: Factor structure and relationship with above-level test scores. Roeper Review, 27, 104-109. doi:10.1080/027831905009554298
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Selecting instructional strategies for gifted learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36, 1-12. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/224044187?pq- origsite=gscholar
Williams, J. E., & Montgomery, D. (1995). Using frame of reference theory to understand the self-concept of academically able students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 400-409. doi:10.1177/01623532950/800404
Bio Jessica Watts is a graduate teaching assistant in the College of Education, Health, and Aviation at Oklahoma State University.
Copyright of Gifted Child Today is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.