Next Article in Journal
From Progressive Property to Progressive Cities: Can Socially Sustainable Interpretations of Property Contribute toward Just and Inclusive City-Planning? Global Lessons
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Effects of Grouping High Capacity Students in Academic Achievement and Creativity
Previous Article in Journal
Accelerometry-Measured Physical Activity in Amateur Footballers. Is It Enough to Obtain Health Benefits?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Collective and Individual Sources of Women’s Creativity: Heroism and Psychological Types Involved in Enhancing the Talent of Emerging Leaders
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/su12114474
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mexican Teachers’ Knowledge about Gifted Children: Relation to Teacher Teaching Experience and Training

by
Pedro Antonio Sánchez-Escobedo
1,*,
Angel Alberto Valdés-Cuervo
2,
Guillermo Alfonso Contreras-Olivera
1,
Fernanda Inéz García-Vázquez
2 and
María Fernanda Durón-Ramos
2
1
College of Education, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Mérida 97000, Mexico
2
Technological Institute of Sonora, Cd Obregón 85000, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(11), 4474; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114474
Submission received: 24 April 2020 / Revised: 12 May 2020 / Accepted: 25 May 2020 / Published: 1 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue High Abilities, Talent and Creativity)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gifted students are important for the development of knowledgeable societies. The present study examined Mexican elementary-school teachers’ knowledge about gifted students, specifically on screening criteria, educational strategies, and their social value. The relationships between teachers’ knowledge, teaching experience, and training in gifted education was analysed. A total of 1002 teachers (M age = 37.5, SD = 9.6 years old) from the 33 states of Mexico, 365 men and 510 females with 13.5 years of teaching experience, of whom 32% were trained in gifted education, completed an anonymous questionnaire. K-means cluster analysis revealed two clusters. Cluster 1 comprised teachers (61.2%) with poor knowledge, while Cluster 2 included teachers (38.8%) with basic knowledge and more teaching experience and training. Overall, the findings had implications for teachers’ training and educational policy.

1. Introduction

The socioeconomic development of a country relies on the potential of its talented people. Gifted students have outstanding intelligence that leads them to high performance in a scientific and technological setting [1,2]. As a result, they are more likely to gain doctoral degrees, and achieve scientific and technological innovation [3,4], among other key actions, to enhance domestic human capital. Therefore, in knowledge-based societies, the education of the gifted should be prominent in educational policy.
Teachers play an important role in improving inventive and creative outcomes in gifted students [5,6]. In fact, studies suggested that gifted students were positively influenced by their teachers when they were aware of their unique educational needs [7,8,9]. Recent research indicated that gifted students’ success was related to both teacher support and specialized education [10,11]. In order to provide adequate educational context to gifted students, teachers have to identify gifted students using accurate educational strategies, and need knowledge about different aspects of educating the gifted, such as identification, educational strategies, and becoming aware of the social value of the education of gifted students [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
As in many countries [15,16], research in Mexico disclosed that teachers have problems with identifying and educating gifted students [17,18]. Several studies associated these difficulties with the scarce literature on the effects of teaching training programs in Mexico [19,20]. Nonetheless, a few studies argued that, when teachers have limited scientific information about gifted students’ characteristics, their attitudes and practices toward them may be biased [21,22].
Despite the need for evidence-based knowledge concerning gifted education, there are limited studies to measure teachers’ knowledge about gifted students in undeveloped countries. Empirical information about gifted education is needed to set appropriate training activities for in-service teachers, and to promote changes and improvement across teaching educational programs. For this study, we analysed Mexican elementary-teacher knowledge about gifted students in three essential topics: identification, educational strategies, and the social value of gifted education.

1.1. Teacher Knowledge about Gifted Identification

Teachers’ knowledge influences their attitudes and behaviour towards gifted students [23,24]. Many teachers have limited information about gifted students’ characteristics. One study showed that only 26.8% of teachers responded correctly to questions about giftedness [10]. Studies also revealed that many teachers believed, contrary to scientific research findings, that gifted students tended to show less social adjustment than that of average-ability students [25,26]. Furthermore, there were sex and academic achievement biases in the teachers’ judgment in terms of gifted intelligence [27,28]. Matheis et al. [26] also found that male gifted students were perceived by teachers as less socially and emotionally competent, and less adjusted than female gifted students. Limited teachers’ knowledge was associated with bias-identification strategies on the basis of traditional conceptions of giftedness that convey stereotypes regarding the cognitive, socioemotional, and behavioural characteristics of gifted students [24,25].

1.2. Teacher Knowledge about Gifted Educational Strategies

Diverse studies showed that there is a gap between teachers’ beliefs about what is effective in gifted education and information supported by empirical evidence [28,29,30,31,32,33]. In this regard, some studies showed that teachers are biased about educational strategies such as acceleration [34]. Acceleration, as a common and effective gifted educational strategy, was conceived as problematic by teachers because they believed students might have emotional issues when skipping grades or missing important academic content [35,36,37,38].
A study conducted by Troxclair [22] found that teachers believed it is better to teach gifted students in a special centre despite what scientific research suggested. However, the study warned that most teachers believed that special programs for gifted children had the hitch of creating elitism and selfishness. Lastly, scholars suggested that teachers often assumed that gifted students do not have to be concerned about their learning because they are motivated and perform well in class, having good grades, scoring high on standardized assessments, and performing well just because they are gifted [30].

1.3. Factors Affecting Teacher Knowledge

A teacher developmental model [39] posited that positive change in teacher knowledge and practices was associated with teaching experience and training. Specifically, researchers argued that both variables influenced teacher knowledge about gifted students [40,41,42,43]. In this regard, researchers reported that younger teachers showed less understanding about gifted education. As a result, they were less likely to provide gifted education. On the other hand, older teachers warned that gifted students needed special educational support [44,45,46]. Regarding the training of teachers, several studies [47,48,49,50,51,52,53] reported that teachers with proper training about gifted education were more likely to identify and refer students to gifted services. As expected, teachers with appropriate training tended to focus on student characteristics, strengths, and interests rather than IQ data as a means of identification. Therefore, teacher training seems to be an effective way to meet gifted students’ educational needs.
In Mexico, there are limited studies about teacher knowledge concerning gifted education [53,54,55]. These studies can be grouped into two main areas: gifted characteristics and educational strategies. Overall, Mexican studies showed that teachers often confuse high-achieving students with the gifted. Moreover, Mexican elementary teachers believed that gifted education was not an important matter. Furthermore, it was shown that teachers were aware of their lack of training and scarce knowledge regarding the identification of gifted students [52,54].
On the other hand, some studies that examined Mexican teacher knowledge of gifted education reported that elementary-school teachers have limited knowledge. Specifically, scholars argued there is a lack of supportive attitudes toward acceleration among Mexican teachers [52]. In a similar vein, Palacios-Gonzalez [53] found negative attitudes from teachers toward acceleration, and the belief that acceleration might be “an elitist practice”. Palacios-Gonzalez explained that the general lack of knowledge about the acceleration strategy might be the reason for their negative attitudes. According to the author, teachers’ stances rely on stereotypical beliefs.

1.4. Present Study

The study of teacher knowledge about gifted students is essential for enhancing teacher-training programs concerning gifted education. In this context, our study proposed: (1) identifying clusters in Mexican elementary teachers on the basis of their knowledge about the identification of gifted students, educational strategies, and social value; and (2) examining the association between teaching experience and training on gifted education, and teachers’ knowledge about gifted students.
To accomplish these proposals, the following hypotheses were tested:
H1. 
Different clusters exist in Mexican elementary teachers on the basis of their knowledge about gifted students.
H2. 
Teacher experience and training are positively associated with teacher knowledge about gifted students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample included 1002 elementary teachers from 32 states of Mexico. Participants were selected by non-probabilistic sampling. The sample comprised 365 (36%) males (M age = 38.08, SD = 9.78 years), and 518 (64%) females (M age = 37.13, SD = 9.66 years). Research participants had between 1 and 56 years of teaching experience (M = 13.55, SD = 9.81 years). In total, 78% worked in public, whereas 22% taught in private schools. Nationwide, 89% of Mexican schools are public and 11% are private (Secretary of Public Education SEP by its Spanish acronym, 2013). Only 320 (31.9%) teachers had received training in gifted education.

2.2. Measures

Teacher Knowledge about Gifted Students

A scale was developed for the study. First, content-related validity was explored through experts (two gifted education teachers and four researchers in the field). The proposed scale comprised 16 items grouped in three dimensions: identification (6 items, Kuder–Richardson coefficient KR-20 = 0.71), information about gifted traits and identification (e.g., “gifted students may be in areas of poverty and marginalisation”); educational strategies (6 items, KR-20 = 0.73), comprising knowledge about strategies and the social value of gifted education (e.g., “gifted students can skip grades”); and social values (4 items, KR-20 = 0.70), the importance of gifted education in policy and socioeconomic development (e.g., countries with specific policies for gifted students have higher levels of socioeconomic development).

2.3. Procedure

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Technological Institute of Sonora. This committee is aligned with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the American Educational Research (AERA) code of ethics. Potential research participants were reached to gather volunteer participants. Later, a consent letter for participation in the study was signed by volunteers. Lastly, we ensured confidentiality by making the questionnaires anonymous. Research participants responded either by paper and pencil (484 teachers) or by completing an online form (518 teachers). The questionnaire was answered, on average, in 12 min.

2.4. Data Analysis

The percentage of the missing data was 2% in the sample. In all cases, data were treated using the multiple-imputation method available in SPSS. Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated. K-means cluster analysis was used to group teachers in clusters on the basis of their knowledge of gifted students. In this procedure, scores in the teachers’ knowledge concerning gifted-student identification, educational strategies, and social value were converted to z-scores. An independent-sample Student’s t (homogeneity of variance was tested with Levine’s statistic) and chi-squared test were calculated to examine how teaching experience and training were associated with teacher knowledge about gifted students. Differences in effect size were analysed using Cohen’s d test and the phi coefficient.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

Table 1 shows that teachers had limited knowledge concerning identification, educational strategies, and the social value of gifted students. Skewness and kurtosis values suggested univariate normality in data distribution.

3.2. K-Means Clustering

Convergence was reached in four iterations. Univariate ANOVA indicated that the clustered groups significantly differed on all variables. The final cluster centres and the numbers of cases in each cluster are shown in Table 2. Results showed that most of the teachers included in the cluster had poor knowledge about gifted students.

3.3. Teacher Teaching Experience, Training, and Knowledge about Gifted Students

Levine’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated in the teaching-experience variable (F = 1.60, p = 0.203). Table 3 shows that teachers included in Cluster 2 (basic knowledge about gifted students) had more teaching experience than that of teachers included in Cluster 1 (poor knowledge). In addition, the chi-squared test showed that a higher proportion of teachers had received training in gifted education in Cluster 2 (basic knowledge). In both variables, differences between clusters had a practical value.

4. Discussion

The intent of this study was to add information on Mexican elementary-teacher knowledge about gifted students. For this propose, the study examined teacher knowledge about gifted children’s’ characteristics and education, and their relationship to teachers’ experience and training in gifted education. Overall, our findings validated the proposed hypotheses about the existence of different groups in Mexican elementary teachers based on their knowledge about gifted students. In addition, our study confirmed the expected positive association between teachers’ experience and training, and teachers’ knowledge about gifted students.

4.1. Teacher Knowledge about Gifted Students

The study showed that Mexican elementary teachers have limited knowledge about gifted students’ characteristics and education. In particular, cluster analyses revealed that almost 70% of Mexican teachers do not have the necessary knowledge to effectively teach gifted students. These results are consistent with other reports in diverse studies [16,17,18,19] that suggested teachers do not have the necessary knowledge to effectively manage gifted students. This situation is worrying because teachers have an important influence on the intellectual and socioemotional development of gifted students [7,8,9]. Although further studies are necessary to explain these findings, these results may be associated with the little support that Mexican education policy gives to the development of talent in gifted students [55].

4.2. Teacher Teaching Experience and Training Effects on Teacher Knowledge

Our results were expected because they reaffirm that teacher experience had a positive relationship with their knowledge about gifted students. These findings were similar to others reported in the literature [45,46,47] that suggested that experienced teachers recognise higher self-efficacy for inquiry in gifted students and employ diverse instructional practices with students with special learning needs [48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Lastly, studies suggested that an important predictor of teachers’ knowledge about gifted students is based on contact with gifted students, since they help teachers recognize their characteristics and educational needs [41,51].
Consistent with the literature, we found that teaching training is positively associated with teachers’ knowledge about gifted students [49,50,51]. This finding showed the importance of teacher training for improving teachers’ information about gifted students, which is important because knowledge about gifted students improves the teachers’ identification and instructional strategy.
The study provided important empirical data about Mexican elementary teachers’ knowledge about gifted students. However, the findings had some limitations. First, we only reported reliability of a scale developed for the present study. More studies are necessary for examining psychometric properties of the scale (e.g., construct and concurrent validity). Second, a transversal design did not allow the establishment of causal relationships between variables. Longitudinal and experiment designs that allow investigating the causal relationships between these variables are recommended. Finally, although the sample came from teachers from different Mexican states, it might not be representative of the diversity of teachers in the entirety of Mexico (e.g., teachers that teach in indigenous and rural schools).

5. Conclusions

From a theoretical perspective, the study confirmed the value of a teacher developmental model [39] to study teacher variables associated with their knowledge of gifted students. It showed that teachers’ teaching experience and training were both critical variables to explain teachers’ knowledge about gifted students. From a practical viewpoint, the results suggested that teaching experience and training were both critical in improving teachers’ knowledge about gifted students. Lastly, the findings suggested that it is necessary in future studies to explore other teacher variables with respect to their knowledge in this topic, such as intelligence, mindset, and attitudes to gifted education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.A.S.-E. and A.A.V.-C.; methodology, P.A.S.-E. and G.A.C.-O.; validation, A.A.V.-C. and F.I.G.-V.; formal analysis, A.A.V.-C. and M.F.D.-R.; resources, P.A.S.-E. and G.A.C.-O.; data curation, G.A.C.-O.; writing—original-draft preparation, P.A.S.-E. and A.A.V.-C.; writing—review and editing, A.A.V.-C., G.A.C.-O., F.I.G.-V., and M.F.D.-R.; project administration, G.A.C.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gagné, F. Giftedness and talent: Reexamining of the definitions. Gift. Child Q. 1985, 29, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Mcclain, M.-C.; Pfeiffer, S. Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at State definitions, policies, and practices. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 2012, 28, 59–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kell, H.J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C.P. Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 648–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McClarty, K.L. Life in the fast lane: Effects of early grade acceleration on high school and college outcomes. Gift. Child Q. 2015, 59, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Frase-Seeto, K. Pre-service teacher training in gifted and talented education: An Australian perspective. J. Stud. Engagem. Educ. Matters 2013, 3, 29–38. Available online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jseem/vol3/iss1/5 (accessed on 10 October 2019).
  6. McCoach, D.B.; Siegle, D. What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gift. Child Q. 2007, 51, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Park, S.; Oliver, J.S. The translation of teachers’ understanding of gifted student into instructional strategies for teaching science. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2009, 20, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Croft, L.J. Teacher of the gifted: Gifted teacher. In Handbook of Gifted Education, 3rd ed.; Colangelo, N., Davis, G.A., Eds.; Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 558–571. [Google Scholar]
  9. Colangelo, N.; Assouline, S.; Gross, M. A Nation Devoiced; The University of Iowa: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  10. Del Siegle, D.; McCoach, D.B. Promoting a positive achievement attitude with gifted and talented students. In The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children. What Do We Know? Neihart, M., Robinson, S.M., Moon, S.M., Eds.; The National Association for Gifted Children: Waco, TX, USA, 2003; pp. 237–250. [Google Scholar]
  11. Van Tassel-Baska, J.; Stambaugh, T. Curriculum and instructional considerations in programs for the gifted. In Handbook of Giftedness in Children. Psycho-Educational Theory, Research, and Best Practices; Pfeifer, S.I., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 347–366. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kashani-Vahid, L.; Afrooz, G.; Shokoohi-Yetka, M.; Kharrazi, K.; Ghobari, B. Can a creative interpersonal problem-solving program improve creative thinking in gifted elementary students? Think. Ski. Creat. 2017, 24, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Reis, S.M.; Renzulli, J.S. Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2010, 20, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sánchez, P.; Medrano, R. Research Gate Home Page. Pruebas Académicas para la Acreditación y Ubicación Adelantada (Aceleración) de los Niños Sobresalientes en México. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306267658_Pruebas_academicas_para_la_acreditacion_y_ubicacion_adelantada_aceleracion_de_los_ninos_sobresalientes_en_Mexico (accessed on 1 June 2020).
  15. Heyder, A.; Bergold, S.; Steinmayir, R. Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 2017, 17, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Geake, J.G.; Gross, M.U.M. Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students. Gift. Child Q. 2008, 52, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Rothenbusch, S.; Zettler, I.; Voss, T.; Lösch, T.; Trautwein, U. Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nominations of gifted students. J. Educ. Psychol. 2016, 108, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chávez-Soto, B.I.; Zacatelco-Ramírez, F.J.; González-Granados, A. ¿Es efectiva la nominación del maestro en estudiantes sobresalientes? [Is teacher nomination effective in gifted students. Rev. Educ. Desarro 2018, 45, 25–35. Available online: cucs.udg.mx/revistas/edu_desarrollo/anteriores/45/45_Chavez.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2019).
  19. Rodríguez-Naveiras, E.; Cadenas, M.; Borges, A.; Valadez, D. Educational responses to students with high abilities from the parental perspectives. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Sánchez-Escobedo, P.A.; Camelo-Lavadores, A.K.; Valdés-Cuervo, A.A. Gifted, talented and high achieving students and their gifted education in Mexico. In Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific; Smith, S.R., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Valadez-Sierra, M.D.; Borges, Á.; Zambrano, R. La capacitación del profesorado del alumnado sobresaliente [The training of teachers of the outstanding student]. Talincrea 2017, 4, 15–26. Available online: Talincrea.cucs.udg.mx/sites/default/files/Valadez%20Borges%20&20Zambrano%20(2017).pdf (accessed on 20 May 2018).
  22. Troxclair, D.A. Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper. Rev. 2013, 35, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Wet, C.F.; Gubbins, J. Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper. Rev. 2011, 33, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moon, T.R.; Brighton, C. Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. J. Educ. Gift. 2008, 31, 447–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Baudson, J.; Preckel, F. Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gift. Child Q. 2016, 60, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matheis, S.; Keller, L.K.; Kronborg, L.; Schmitt, M.; Preckel, F. Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristic in Australia. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 48, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Del Siegle, D.; Powell, T. Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gift. Child Q. 2004, 48, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Petersen, J. Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 38, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Machts, N.; Kaiser, J.; Schmidt, F.T.C.; Möller, J. Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ cognitive abilities. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016, 19, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hosseinkhanzadeh, A.; Yeganeh, T.; Taher, M. Investigate attitudes of parents and teachers about educational placement of gifted students. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 84, 631–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ozcan, D.; Kayadelen, K. Special education teachers and their opinions about the education of gifted students. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 190, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Matheis, S.; Kronborg, L.; Schmitt, M.; Preachel, F. Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gift. Talent. Int. 2017, 32, 134–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Jones, S.; Myhill, D. ‘Troublesome boys’ and ‘compliant girls’: Gender identity and perceptions of achievement and underachievement. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 2004, 25, 547–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rogers, K. The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding back America´s Brightest Students; Assouline, S.G., Colangelo, N., van Tassel-Baska, J., Eds.; The Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2015; pp. 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gallagher, S.; Smith, S.R.; Merrotsy, P. Teachers’ perception of the socioemotional development on intellectually gifted primary aged students and their attitudes towards ability grouping and acceleration. Gift. Talent. Int. 2011, 26, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Missett, T.C.; Brunner, M.; Callahan, C.M.; Moon, T.R.; Azano, A.P. Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. J. Educ. Gift. 2014, 37, 245–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hoogeveen, L.; van Hell, J.G.; Verhoeven, L. Teacher attitudes toward academic acceleration and accelerated students in the Netherlands. J. Educ. Gift. 2005, 29, 30–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Del Siegle, D.; Wilson, H.E. A sample of gifted and talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. J. Adv. Acad. 2013, 24, 27–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fuller, F.F.; Bown, O.H. Becoming a teacher. In Teacher education. In 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study Education; Ryan, K., Ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1975; pp. 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bégin, J.; Gagné, F. Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and blueprints for future research. J. Educ. Gift. 1994, 17, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lassig, C.J. Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australas J. Gift. Educ. 2019, 18, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Busse, T.V.; Dahme, G.; Wagner, H.; Wieczerkowski, W. Teacher perceptions of highly gifted students in the United States and West Germany. Gift. Child Q. 1986, 30, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Busse, T.V.; Dahme, G.; Wagner, H.; Wieczerkowski, W. Factors underlying teacher perceptions of highly gifted students: A cross-cultural study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1986, 46, 903–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alkhunaini, N.A. Twice-Exceptional Learners: Saudi Teachers’ Awareness and Referral of Gifted Students with Disabilities. Master’s Thesis, School of Education, University of Elon, Elon, NC, USA, 2013. Available online: http://sdl.edu.sa/SDLPortal/en/A-ZAll.aspx (accessed on 16 September 2019).
  45. Gary, A.; Mylonas, K.; Portesová, S. An analysis of attitudes towards the gifted students with learning difficulties using two samples of Greek and Czech primary school teachers. Gift. Educ. Int. 2015, 31, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jung, J.; McCormick, J.; Gross, M.U. The forced choice dilemma a model incorporating/allocentric cultural orientation. Gift. Child Q. 2012, 56, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Southern, W.T.; Jones, E.E. Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. In A Nation Empowered. Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding back America’s Brightest Students; Assouline, S.G., Colangelo, N., van Tassel-Baska, J., Eds.; The Berlin Blank Center Gifted Education and Talent Development: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2015; pp. 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chamberlin, M.T.; Chamberlin, S.A. Enhancing preservice teacher development: Field experiences with gifted children. J. Educ. Gift. 2010, 33, 381–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Bianco, M.; Leech, N.L. Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability label of gifted referral. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 2010, 33, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Brevik, L.M.; Gunnulfsen, A.E.; Renzulli, J.S. Student teacher´s practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 71, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sánchez-Escobedo, P.A.; Herrera, L. Acreditación y promoción anticipada de los alumnos altamente sobresalientes. In Alumnos Superdotados y Talentosos [Gifted and Talented Students]; de los Dolores Valadez-Sierra, M., Betancourt, J., Alicia, Z.M., Eds.; Manual Moderno: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2012; pp. 413–422. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ac-Avila, V.I.; Sánchez-Escobedo, P.A. Nomenclatura asignada a estudiantes con alta capacidad intelectual y su atención en el SEN [Nomenclature assigned to students with high intellectual capacity and their attention at the SEN]. Rev. Insp. Educ. Mex. 2020, 4, 20–33. Available online: http://www.revistainspiracioneducativa.com/RIE-Cuarta-edificio%CC81n.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
  53. Palacios-Gonzalez, P. Predictors of Mexican Teachers’ Attitudes towards Acceleration. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2018. Available online: Unsworks.unsw-edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:58245/SOURCE02?view=true (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  54. Valadez-Sierra, M.D.; Galán-Leyte, M.G.; Borges del Rosal, A.; López-Aymes, G.; Ávalos-Rincón, A.; Zambrano-Guzmán, R. Identificación e intervención a niños con aptitudes sobresalientes desde el discurso de profesores de primaria del estado de Guanajuato. Rev. Educ. Desarro 2015, 34, 35–42. Available online: Cucs.udg.mx/revistas/edu_desarrollo/anteriores/34/34_Valadez.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2019).
  55. Heredia, B.; Franco, E. La Brecha de Talento en México y Sus Costos Económicos [The Talent Gap in Mexico and Its Economic Costs]; Center for Economic Research and Teaching: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Means, Standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for variables in the study.
Table 1. Means, Standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for variables in the study.
VariablesMinimumMaximumMSDSkewKurt
Gifted identification062.861.26−0.05−0.16
Gifted educational strategies082.951.34−0.16−0.45
Social value042.041.030.07−0.68
Teacher teaching experience15613.559.810.940.36
Table
Table 2. Final cluster z score means on knowledge about gifted children.
Table 2. Final cluster z score means on knowledge about gifted children.
VariablesCluster 1 (Poor Knowledge)Cluster 2 (Basic Knowledge)F(1)
n = 613 (61.2%)n = 389 (38.8%)
Identification−0.670.47372.70 *
Educational strategies−0.760.53494.62 *
Social value−0.580.41317.81 *
* p ≤ 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Mean values of frequencies for predictor variables as functions of cluster pertinence.
Table 3. Mean values of frequencies for predictor variables as functions of cluster pertinence.
VariableCluster 1
(Poor Knowledge)		Cluster 2
(Basic Knowledge)		X2 (1)
t (1000)		pCohen’s Phi Coefficient
Teaching experience12.5115.194.60<0.0010.29
Teacher training61338919.28<0.0010.23
Note: t test used for teaching experience; chi-squared test was used for teacher training.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-Escobedo, P.A.; Valdés-Cuervo, A.A.; Contreras-Olivera, G.A.; García-Vázquez, F.I.; Durón-Ramos, M.F. Mexican Teachers’ Knowledge about Gifted Children: Relation to Teacher Teaching Experience and Training. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114474

AMA Style

Sánchez-Escobedo PA, Valdés-Cuervo AA, Contreras-Olivera GA, García-Vázquez FI, Durón-Ramos MF. Mexican Teachers’ Knowledge about Gifted Children: Relation to Teacher Teaching Experience and Training. Sustainability. 2020; 12(11):4474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114474

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-Escobedo, Pedro Antonio, Angel Alberto Valdés-Cuervo, Guillermo Alfonso Contreras-Olivera, Fernanda Inéz García-Vázquez, and María Fernanda Durón-Ramos. 2020. "Mexican Teachers’ Knowledge about Gifted Children: Relation to Teacher Teaching Experience and Training" Sustainability 12, no. 11: 4474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114474

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop