Self-Perception of Giftedness in Adolescents Selected for Gifted Education Programmes

Specialized support for gifted children and adolescents should be based on the specifics of their social situation of development which is largely determined by the fact of identifying a person as gifted. ‘Labeling giftedness’ has a significant impact on the system of interpersonal relationships and self-attitude of children and adolescents. However, there is no holistic construct of the phenomenon of ‘self-perception of giftedness’ in psychology today, therefore, we defined the theoretical and empirical development of this construct as the goal of our study. The paper presents the results of this study which describes the construct of ‘self-perception of giftedness’ basing on the survey of 422 adolescents aged 15—17 years who had been selected for gifted education programmes. Using factor analysis we identify the main dimensions of the construct typical for late adolescence: giftedness resources/risks assessment; environment of risks and resources manifestation (internal/external); localization of conditions for high achievement (internal — external).Basing on the analysis of the significance of differences, we outline the perspectives of using the construct to reveal gender specifics of self-perception of giftedness in older adolescents enrolled in gifted education programmes.

1. Volkova E.N., Miklyaeva A.V., Khoroshikh V.V.Kriterii identifikatsii detskoi i podrostkovoi odarennosti kak osnovanie dlya formirovaniya vyborok pri provedenii psikhologicheskikh issledovanii [Criteria of identification of children’s and adolescent giftedness as a basis for forming samples when planning psychological research].Teoreticheskaya i eksperimental’naya psikhologiya = Theoretical and experimental psychology, 2019, Vol.12, no.1, pp.69—78.(In Russ.).
2. Vygotskiш L.S.Pedologiнa podrostka [Teenager’s Pedology].In Pavlova M.K.(ed.), Psihologicheskie teorii podrostkovogo vozrasta: hrestomatija = Psychological Theories of Adolescence: A Reading Book.Moscow: ANO PJeB, 2008, pp.284—324.(In Russ.).
3. Meshkova N.V.Zarubezhnye issledovaniya odarennosti: sotsial’no-psikhologicheskii aspekt [Elektronnyi resurs] [Research of academic giftedness in foreign studies: socio-psychological aspect].Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2015.Vol.4, no 1, pp.26—44.URL: https://psyjournals.ru/ jmfp/2015/n1/76175.shtml (In Russ.).
4. Pantileev S.R.Samootnoshenie kak emotsional’no-otsenochnaya Sistema [Self-attitude as an emotional-evaluation system].Moscow: Publ.MGU, 1991.100 p.(In Russ.).
5. Sardzhveladze N.I.Struktura samootnosheniya lichnosti i sotsiogennye potrebnosti [The structure of the individual’s self-attitude and sociogenic needs].In Sardzhveladze N.I., Chkhartishvili Sh.N.(eds.), Problemy formirovaniya sotsiogennykh potrebnostei = Problems of sociogenic needs forming.Tbilisi: «Mitsniereba», 1974, pp.103—107.(In Russ.).
6. Stolin V.V.Samosoznanie lichnosti [Self-identity].Moscow: Publ.MGU, 1983.288p.(In Russ.).
7. Shcheblanova E.I., Petrova S.O.Obshchaya i akademicheskaya ya-kontseptsii odarennykh uchashchikhsya srednei shkoly [General and academic self-concepts of gifted secondary school students].Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya = Psychological studies, 2014.Vol.7, no.38, p.7.URL: http://psystudy.ru (Accessed: 20.02.2020).(In Russ.).
8. Yalom I.Ekzistentsial’naya psikhoterapiya [Existential psychotherapy].Moscow: Publ Klass, 2019.576 p.(In Russ.).
9. Assouline S., Colangelo N., Ihrig D., Forstadt L.Аttributional Choices for Academic Success and Failure by Intellectually Gifted Students.Gifted Child Quarterly, 2006.Vol.50, no.4, pp.283—294.DOI:10.1177 / 001698620605000402
10. Bain Sh.K., Bell Sh.M.Social Self-Concept, Social Attributions, and Peer Relationships in Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Graders Who Are Gifted Compared to High Achievers.Gifted Child Quarterly, 2004.Vol.48, no.3, рр.167—178.DOI:10.1177/001698620404800302
11. Barab S.A., Plucker J.A.Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning.Educational Psychologist, 2002.Vol.37, pp. 165—182.
12. Brighton C.M.The effects of middle school teachers’ beliefs on classroom practices.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2003.Vol.27, no.2/3, pp. 177—206.
13. Butler J.The Psychic Life of Power.California: Stanford University Press, 1997.230 р.
14. Coleman L., Cross T.Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1988.Vol.11, pp.41—56.
15. Comerford Boyes L., Reid I., Brain K., Wilson, J.Accelerated learning: A literature survey.Unpublished report, Department for Education and Skills, London, 2004.
16. Cornel D.G.Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1983.Vol.53, pp.322—335.
17. Cornell D.G., Grossberg I.N.Parent use of the term “gifted”: Correlates with family environment and child adjustment.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1989.Vol.12, pp.218—230.
18. Cross T., Colemean L., Stewart.R.The Social cognition of gifted adolescence: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm.Roeper Review, 1993.Vol.16, no.1, pp.37—40.
19. 19. Ellen J.It’s All a Matter of Perspective: Student Perceptions on the Impact of Being Labeled Gifted and Talented.Roeper Review, 2009.Vol.31, pp. 217—223.DOI:10.1080/02783190903177580
20. Freeman J.Giftedness in the Long Term.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2006.Vol.29, no.4, pp. 384—403.
21. Geake J.G., Gross U.M.Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: an evolutionary psychological study.Gifted Child Quarterly, 2008.Vol. 52, no.3, pp.217—231.
22. Hewitt D.Gifted and talented mathematics.Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 2010.Vol.25, no.3.URL: http:// www.bsrim.org.uk
23. Howard-Hamilton M., Franks B.A.Gifted adolescents: Psychological behaviors, values, and developmental implications.Roeper Review, 1995.Vol. 17, no.3, pp.186—191.
24. Jenkins-Friedman R., Murphy D.L.The Mary Poppins Effect: Relationships between Gifted Students’ Self Concept and Adjustment.Roeper Review, 1988.Vol.11, no.1, pp.26—30.
25. Juriševič M., Žerak U.Attitudes Towards Gifted Students and Their Education in the Slovenian Context.Educational psychology from a contemporary perspective, 2019.Vol.12, no.4, pp.101—117.DOI:10.11621/pir.2019.0406
26. Kerr B., Colangelo N., Gaeth J.Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness.Gifted Child Quarterly, 1988.Vol.32, no 2, pp.245—247.
27. Levine E., Tucker S.Emotional needs of gifted children: A preliminary phenomenological view.The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 1986.Vol.11, pp. 156—165.
28. Marsh H.W., Parker J.W.Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984.Vol.47, no.1, pp.213—231.DOI:10.1037/0022- 3514.47.1.213
29. Marsh H.W., Morin A.J., Parker P.D.Physical self-concept changes in a selective sport high school: a longitudinal cohort-sequence analysis of the big-fish-little-pond effect.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2015.Vol.37, no.2, pp.150—163.DOI:10.1123/jsep.2014-0224
30. O’Connor J.Is It Good to be Gifted? The Social Construction of the Gifted Child.Сhildren and society, 2012.Vol.26, pp.293—303.DOI:10.1111/j.1099- 0860.2010.00341.x
31. Patchett R.F., Gauthier Y.Parent and teacher perceptions of giftedness and a program for the gifted.BC Journal of Special Education (British Columbia), 1991.Vol.15, no.1, pp.25—38.
32. Salchegge S.Selective school systems and academic self-concept: How explicit and implicit school-level tracking relate to the big-fish-little-pond effect across cultures.Journal of Educational Psychology, 2016.Vol.108, no.3, pp.405—423.DOI:10.1037/edu0000063
33. Striley K.The Stigma of Excellence and the Dialectic of (Perceived) Superiority and Inferiority: Exploring Intellectually Gifted Adolescents’ Experiences of Stigma.Communication Studies, 2014.Vol.65, issue 2, pp.139—153.DOI:10.1080/10510974.2013.851726
34. Swiatek M.А., Dorr R.M.Revision of the social coping questionnaire: Replication and extension of previous findings.Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 1998.Vol.10, issue 1, p.252.
35. Tannenbaum A.J.Gifted Children.New York: MacMillan.1983.466 p.

PlumX

article metrics