Fostering Parent-Teacher Relationships when Children are Gifted
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The specific focus of this study was on parent and teacher relationships, when a child is gifted. The study addressed two interrelated questions. (1) What is the parent's perspective of the relationship between parent and teacher when a child is gifted? (2) What is the teacher's perspective of the relationship between parent and teacher when a child is gifted? Five parents and four teachers were interviewed individually on several occasions, and the interview content was analyzed thematically. For parents, five themes were identified, related to instructional programming, teacher competencies, curriculum needs, parental involvement in their children 's education, and problematic behavior. For teachers, there were also five themes, including identification of giftedness, funding issues, communication issues, partnerships in education, and impact on the children. The parent and teacher themes are reported in greater detail elsewhere (Penney & Wilgosh, 1998). This paper addresses the four overlapping themes derived from a comparison of the parent and teacher themes: funding issues, meeting the children's needs, communication, and impact on the children. Implications for fostering parent and teacher partnerships are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".