Search results

Across the nation, African-American and Latino males have experienced limited access to placement in gifted education programs. This paper aims to pinpoint and describe the factors that frequently influence access to gifted education programming among African-American and Latino males.

African-American and Latino males are persistently underrepresented in gifted education for reasons such as teachers’ narrow conceptions of giftedness, teachers’ bias in the nomination process and teachers’ inappropriate usage and interpretation of intelligence measures. When these students qualify for such services, they often experience feelings of isolation and loneliness due to scarce representation of other African-American and Latino male students. A review of extant literature was conducted to identify factors that influence access to gifted education programming among African-American and Latino males.

African-American and Latino males encounter roadblocks in being identified for gifted placement and many also experience implicit biases and stereotypical beliefs about their ability. The need for culturally competent professionals is critical to meet the academic and social-emotional needs of gifted African-American and Latino males.

Recommendations for school psychologists and school counselors are offered to support the needs of gifted African-American and Latino males, assist in increasing their identification and participation in gifted education, and promote academic success.

There is an urgent need for research on access and placement in gifted programming among African-American and Latino males. Moreover, the role of school psychologists and school counselors should be considered in facilitation of gifted identification and placement.

In distinguishing the education of adults from the education of children, a gray area lies on where to classify gifted and honors students. The purpose of this study was to determine if the attitudes of students at an honors STEM summer camp paralleled the educational needs of adults, namely self-directed learning.

Researchers analyzed survey responses through an exploratory factor analysis and five t tests.

The interpretation of the effect sizes showed that after engaging in a self-directed learning experience, students expressed more positive self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation, experienced reduced extrinsic motivation and anxiety, and were less task-completion oriented.

The results suggest that gifted and honors students may have a propensity to learn that is more similar to that of adults rather than their same-age peers.

In this chapter, I propose an integrative framework for theorizing and empiricizing about talent management, based on the notion of “talent philosophies.” I believe that current debates about whether talent management should be inclusive or exclusive create the risk that our field will become fragmented, thereby undermining its social-scientific legitimacy. Nonetheless, this debate is absolutely correct in identifying the tensions between inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management as a phenomenon. This, however, creates issues for talent management as a construct for scientific inquiry, as we need clear definitions and measures to create a cumulative body of research as a community. I propose that the solution lies in an expansion of our vocabulary as talent management researchers and identify four constructs that can help us structure and categorize our collective work: giftedness, talent, potential, and strength. Each of these constructs map logically onto different talent philosophies and talent management practices. In establishing “unity in diversity,” I believe talent management could finally make the transition into a more mature field of academic inquiry – although clearly phenomenon driven – characterized in equal parts by construct clarity, rigor, and relevance.

Our understanding of leadership has undergone a significant shift in the early part of the 21st century. An emerging perspective, dubbed Eco-Leadership, suggests leadership is a collective process involving both leaders and followers co-creating leadership. Because our beliefs and attitudes toward leadership affect how we lead, it becomes crucial to better understand the views youth have towards leadership, as they develop into our future leaders, to improve curricula and instruction. In this study, no relationship was found between youth attitudes and beliefs towards systemic and hierarchical thinking with respect to their preferred problem-solving style. These findings indicate youth may adaptively or innovatively associate leadership equally through systemic and hierarchical thinking. Further, neither being more adaptive nor more innovative implies one to be better at leading.