Towards the Achievement of a Unified, Uniform and Socially-Just ‘Gifted Education’ Policy Acceptable on a Global Scale

Abstract

The article examines socio-economic and political influences on gifted education. It highlights the widespread disparity between advantaged and disadvantaged ‘gifted and talented’ students in terms of the extent to which they benefit from gifted education. Negative perceptions of social egalitarianism and societal misconceptions in giftedness are critically analysed. Cultural aspects related to gifted education are emphasized with a particular focus on the specific ‘science’ domain of giftedness. The article proposes and outlines future research in gifted education to address the issues of ‘cultural-clashes’ and ‘cross-cultural border crossing’ encountered by gifted and other students in their daily lives. Future outcomes from the proposed research might help teachers adapting their teaching styles and pedagogies to address the needs of gifted students, and assist future longitudinal research related to their cognitive, affective and social development.

Keywords

• gifted education,constructivist,equality,science,society,culture,assessment,curriculum,social justice

References

1. Aikenhead, G. (1980). Science in social issues: Implications of teaching. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
2. Aikenhead, G.S. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. pp. 245-264. Birmingham, UK: Open University Press.Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Students' ease in crossing cultural borders into school science. Science Education, 85 (2), 180-188.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Research into STS science education. Educacion Quimica, 16, 384-397.
4. Ambrose, D. (2003). Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfilment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 282-294. doi: 10.1177/001698620304700405
5. Ambrose, D. (2005). Aspiration growth, talent development, and self-fulfilment in a context of democratic erosion. Roeper Review, 28 (1), 11-19. doi: 10.1080/02783190509554332
6. Ambrose, D. (2013). Socioeconomic inequality and giftedness: Suppression and distortion of high ability. Roeper Review, 35 (2), 81-92. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.766960
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012, December 20). Sports and Physical Recreation: A Statistical Overview, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/4156.0~2012~Chapter~Participation+in+sport+and+physical+recreation?OpenDocument
8. Australian Government. (2015). Australian Government Budget Papers. Retrieved from http://www.budget.gov.au/

9. Cashman, R. (2003, November 5). Sport is culture, and nowhere more so than in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/04/1067708214342.html?from=storyrhs
10. Chowdhury, M.A. (2017). Gifted education in the enabling sciences with a particular emphases on chemistry. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 35-48.
11. Chowdhury, M.A. (2016a). The Integration of Science-Technology-Society/Science-Technology-Society-Environment and Socio-Scientific-Issues for Effective Science Education and Science Teaching. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20 (5), 19-38.
12. Chowdhury, M.A. (2016b). Gifted Education in science and chemistry: Perspectives and insights into teaching, pedagogies, assessments, and psychosocial skills development. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 53-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018116581
13. Chowdhury, M. A. (2013). Incorporating a soap industry case study to motivate and engage students in the chemistry of daily life. Journal of Chemical Education, 90 (7), 866-872. doi: 10.1021/ed300072e
14. Corrigan, D., Dillon, J., and Gunstone, R. (Eds.). (2007). The re-emergence of values in science education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
15. Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world”: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79 (3), 313-333. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790306
16. Cross, J. R. (2013). Gifted education as a vehicle for enhancing social equality. Roeper Review, 35 (2), 115-123. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.766962
17. Cross, T. L. (2011). Beliefs of supporters of gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 34, 24+.
18. Dai, D. Y. (2013). Excellence at the cost of social justice? Negotiating and balancing priorities in gifted education. Roeper Review, 35 (2), 93-101. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.766961
19. Fraser-Seeto, K. (2013). Pre-service teacher training in gifted and talented education: An Australian perspective. Journal of Student Engagement: Education matters, 3 (1), 29-38.
20. Galitis, I. (2008, July 9-11). Teachers’ work and gifted education. Paper presented at the AAEGT 12th National Gifted and Talanted Conference. Hobart, Australia.
21. Gross, M.U.M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.): London: Routledge Falmer.Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Inequity in equity: The paradox of gifted education in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 43 (1), 87-103. doi: 10.1177/000494419904300107
22. Hoekman, K. (1994). Silverman: A New Perspective of Giftedness. Gifted, 82 (April), 21-22.
23. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82 (3), 407-416.
24. Hurd, P. D. (2000). Science education for the 21st century. School Science and Mathematics, 100 (6), 282-288. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17321.x
25. Jegede, O. J. (1995). Collateral learning and the eco-cultural paradigm in science and mathematics education in Africa. Studies in Science Education, 25 (1), 97-137. doi: 10.1080/03057269508560051
26. Jegede, O. J. and Aikenhead, G. S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17 (1), 45-66.
27. Jolly, R. (2013). Sports funding: federal balancing act. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/research/sports-funding-federal-balancing-act
28. McInerney, D and McInerney, V. (2010). Effective Teaching and Learning. In Educational Psychology: Constructing learning (pp. 2-34). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Australia.
29. McLeod, J. (2011). Educating society: sociological debates and dilemmas. In Public Sociology: An Introduction to Australian Society (ed). pp. 437-459. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
30. Munro, J. (2011). Submission to Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the education of Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/etc/Past_Inquiries/EGTS_Inquiry/Submissions/96_Dr_John_Munro.pdf
31. Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee. (2012, June 30). Inquiry into the education of gifted and talented students. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/etc/Past_Inquiries/EGTS_Inquiry/Final_Report/Gifted_and_Talented_Final_Report.pdf
32. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of beliefs. Popular Science Monthly, 12 (November),1-15.
33. Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L. and Cao, H. T. (1991). Students' multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22 (3), 224-250.
34. Plunkett, M. and Kronborg, L. (2007). Gifted education in Australia: A story of striving for balance. Gifted Education International, 23 (1), 72-83.
35. Reis, S. M. and Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (4), 308-317. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
36. Royal Society of Chemistry. (2012). Chemistry for the gifted and talented – Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resource/res00000616/chemistry-for-the-gifted-and-talented-book?cmpid=CMP00000636
37. Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. In Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. (Vol. 39). The Netherlands: Springer.
38. Sapon-Shevin, M. (2000). Gifted Education Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy: Politics and the Rhetoric of School Reform. In Gabbard, David A (Ed.). pp. 121-130. London: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Mahwah.
39. Schulz, S. (2005). The gifted: Identity construction through the practice of gifted education. International Education Journal Special Issue, 5 (5), 117-128.
40. Silverman, L. (2009). What we have learned about gifted children 1979-2009. Retrieved from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm
41. Silverman, L.K. (Ed.) (1993). Counselling the gifted and talented. Denver: Love Publishing Co.Spiegel-Rosing, I. and Price, D. D. (Eds.). (1977). Science, technology, and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Start, K.B. (1989, July 3-7). The tyranny of age. Paper presented at The 8th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children. Sydney, Australia. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P. and Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12 (1), 3-54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056
43. Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R. and Almarode, J. (2009). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32 (1), 7-16. doi: 10.1080/02783190903386553
44. Sumida, M. (2013). Emerging trends in japan in education of the gifted: A focus on science education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 277-289.
45. Taylor, T. and Milton, M. (2006). Preparation for teaching gifted students: an investigation into university courses in Australia. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15 (1), 25-31.
46. Ware V-A. and Meredith, V. (2013, December). Supporting healthy communities through sports and recreation programs. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs26.pdf
47. Woolf, H. (1964). Science as a cultural force. Woolf, H. (Ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
48. Zeidler, D. L. and Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A. and Lin, S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (3), 251-283. doi: 10.1002/tea.21077
50. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. and Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89 (3), 357-377. doi: 10.1002/sce.20048
51. Zeidler, D. L. and Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660210102
52. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A. and Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86 (3), 343-367. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025