Forced Choice Dilemma in Gifted Students: A Narrative Review

Öz

Forced choice dilemma (FCD) is defined as a conflict between gifted students' urges to strive for social acceptance and to pursue higher levels of achievement. In this narrative review, we presented a groundwork for forced choice dilemma and argued that this dilemma is mostly a cultural construct. The forced choice dilemma experienced by gifted students has not been widely recognized in the literature. Therefore, we proposed several strategies to address this complex issue. The existing literature has few studies that investigate the frequency, prevalence, and types of student abilities in which the forced choice dilemma is observed in different genders. The lack of research on this topic emphasizes that the forced choice dilemma's gender differences, prevalence, and situations in which it occurs need broader research. Such studies can aid educators and mental health professionals in offering better support to gifted students in their academic and social growth, customizing interventions and programs to individual requirements and contexts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• forced choice dilemma
• giftedness
• stigma of giftedness paradigm
• big fish in the little pond effect
• social comparison theory
• peer relationship.

Kaynakça

1. Abdulla Alabbasi, A. M., A. Ayoub, A. E., & Ziegler, A. (2020). Are gifted students more emotionally intelligent than their non-gifted peers? A meta-analysis. High Ability Studies, 32(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1770704
2. Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65(3), 169-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112807
3. Al-Onizat, S. H. (2012). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic adaptation among gifted and non-gifted student. International Journal of Human Science, 9, 222-248. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/1976
4. Barber, C., & Wasson, J. W. (2015). A comparison of adolescents’ friendship networks by advanced coursework participation status. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214559639
5. Beuscher, T. M., & Higham, S. J. (1989). A developmental study of adjustment among gifted adolescents. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners (pp. 102-125). Teachers College Press.
6. Brown, B. B., & Steinberg, L. (1990). Academic achievement and social acceptance: Skirting the “brain-nerd” connection. Education Digest, 55(7), 55-60.
7. Carrington, N. (1993). Australian academic attitudes toward academic brilliance. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 2, 10-15.
8. Casino-García, A. M., Llopis-Bueno, M. J., & Llinares-Insa, L. I. (2021). Emotional intelligence profiles and self-esteem/self-concept: An analysis of relationships in gifted students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1006. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1006

9. Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen, S. L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800105
10. Coleman, L. J. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Addison-Wesley.
11. Coleman, L. J. (2014). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521520
12. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41-56.
13. Cross, J. R. (2016). Gifted children and peer relationships. In M. Neihart, S. Pfeiffer, & T. L. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 18-23). Prufrock Press Inc.
14. Cross, J. R., Vaughn, C. T., Mammadov, S., Cross, T. L., Kim, M., O’Reilly, C., Spielhagen, F. R., Pereira Da Costa, M., & Hymer, B. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the social experience of giftedness. Roeper Review, 41(4), 224-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1661052
15. Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2017). Maximizing potential: A school-based conception of psychosocial development. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1292896
16. Cross, T. L., & Swiatek, M. A. (2009). Social coping among academically gifted adolescents in a residential setting: A longitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208326554
17. Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. S. (1995). Psychosocial diversity among gifted adolescents: An exploratory study of two groups. Roeper Review, 17(3), 181-185.
18. Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329101500106
19. Culross, R. R., Jolly, J. L., & Winkler, D. (2013). Facilitating grade acceleration: Revisiting the wisdom of John Feldhusen. Roeper Review, 35(1), 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.74060 1
20. Eddles-Hirsch, K., Vialle, W., McCormick, J., & Rogers, K. (2012). Insiders or outsiders: The role of social context in the peer relations of gifted students. Roeper Review, 34(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.627554
21. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
22. Foust, R. C., Hegbert-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). “Having it All” at sleep’s expense: The forced choice of participants in advanced placement courses and International Baccalaureate programs. Roeper Review, 30(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190801955293
23. Gagne, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
24. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.75
25. Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), 189-194.
26. Gross, M. U. M. (1998). The “me" behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20(3), 167-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553885
27. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. Macmillan.
28. Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Self-concept and social status of accelerated and nonaccelerated students in the first 2 years of secondary school in the
29. Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208326556
30. Jung, J. Y., Barnett, K., Gross, M. U. M., & McCormick, J. (2011). Levels of intellectual giftedness, culture, and the forced-choice dilemma. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 33(3), 182-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580501
31. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2012). Family, self, and human development across cultures: theory and applications (Classic ed.). Routledge.
32. Kaya, F. (2021). Özel yetenekli çocuklarda asenkron gelişim. In U. Sak (Ed.), Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin sosyal duygusal ve akademik gelişimi (pp. 207-223). Pegem Akademi.
33. Killeen, M. F. (2000). Curricular and instructional landscapes in home schools for gifted learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utah State University, Logan.
34. Košir, K., Horvat, M., Aram, U., & Jurinec, N. (2016). Is being gifted always an advantage? Peer relations and self-concept of gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108186
35. Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568
36. Marsh, H. W. (1984). Self-concept, social comparison, and ability grouping: A reply to Kulik and Kulik. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 799-806. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163002
37. Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 280-295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.280
38. Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). 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, 47(1), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.213
39. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
40. Merrotsy, P. (2013). Invisible gifted students. Talent Development and Excellence, 5(2), 31-42.
41. Neihart, M. (2015). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Routledge.
42. Perales, R. G., Gonzalez, I. C., & Martinez, A. C. (2019). High abilities and gender: a self-esteem as an influential factor in the differences between sexes. Contextos Educativos-Revista De Educacion 24, 77-93. https://doi.org/10.18172/con.3934
43. Rentzsch, K., Schröder–Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2013). Being called a ‘Streber’: The roles of personality and competition in the labelling of academically oriented students. European Journal of Personality, 27(5), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1884
44. Rentzsch, K., Schütz, A., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2011). Being labeled “nerd": Factors that influence the social acceptance of high-achieving students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(2), 143-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292900
45. Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13-18). Prufrock Press Inc.
46. Rinn, A. N., Reynolds, M. J., & McQueen, K. S. (2011). Perceived social support and the self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 367-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400302
47. Tokmak, F., Sak, U., & Akbulut, Y. (2021). Big-fish-little-pond effect on gifted students’ academic self-concepts: What if the big fish has adaptable academic self-concepts? Education & Science, 46(206), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9303
48. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.
49. Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2015). A comparison of multiple facets of self-concept in gifted vs. non-identified Israeli students. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095076
50. Ziegler, A., & Bicakci, M. (2023). Labeling the gifted: An overview of four core challenges [Keynote address]. Gifted Students: Nomen est Omen, Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zliné, Zlin, Czechia.
51. Ziegler, A., & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
52. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2017). Systemic gifted education: A theoretical introduction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217705713
53. Ziv, A. (1977). Counseling the intellectually gifted child. University of Toronto Press.