New interpretations of giftedness in early years : looking through the lens of social constructionism.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research investigates the social construction of giftedness, social constructions of teaching and learning for gifted children, and the consequences of these constructions in the early years of education. Social constructionism (Burr, 2015) was used as a theoretical lens through which to shape this research. The research examines how participants interpreted teaching and learning that related to giftedness, and how their constructions influenced their attitudes; with some constructions inter-related but some competing with one another. The research data were collected through three phases using different qualitative methods. These methods included an open-ended questionnaire for early childhood practitioners in Aotearoa New Zealand, Skype interviews were conducted to collect data from initial teacher education (ITE) programme leaders and teacher educators in Aotearoa New Zealand. In the third phase, data were collected through a Facebook closed-group discussion. Some members live in Aotearoa New Zealand, but a significant number resided overseas in countries that include: the United States of America, Australia, Canada, Singapore and India. The data were analysed through an inductive approach. Two conceptual frameworks were used to construct the stories of the participants and these were developed after the data were analysed. The conceptual frameworks of this thesis included the three alternative models of teaching-learning of Smith & Barr (2008) and Noddings' (1984) concept of ethics of care. This research developed three major findings about the participants’ constructions of teaching and learning that impacted on gifted children. The first finding focused on how the participants constructed giftedness as a fixed ability – a result of their construction that giftedness is identified and determined by measurements. The second finding investigated how the participants constructed learning and teaching for gifted children that involved the role of teachers and the views of learners. The third finding discussed that many teachers were dedicated to developing a learning community and were committed to working with gifted children and their parents. The participants indicated that it is important for teachers to develop positive relationships with gifted children and their parents. This research does not seek a common or dominant definition of giftedness; instead, the research explores how the participants constructed teaching and learning and how their constructions influence their actions towards those who are gifted. This thesis argues that giftedness is not a thing that has always existed but, rather, it is a concept invented by people as a way to describe certain phenomena and make sense of certain experiences. This argument highlighted a significant message: that giftedness is socially constructed and each construction of giftedness can have consequences for gifted children and their families.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».