Seminole State College Types of Stereotypes About Gifted Children Discussion
Description
I know you guys know the drill now. The page is attached. Please read and respond. Make sure you are extra aware of being respectful and courteous as we may have teachers and others with gifted children in the course (even if we don’t you should always be cognizant of hurtful comments but I thought I’d make an extra mention since this one can quickly become a debate)
Video Reflection: Please watch the Educational Paradigms and Genie the Wild Child videos in the Thinking, Intelligence and Language module page Cognition and Intelligence. Provide a brief but thoughtful and specific reflection about the material in the videos including at least 3 main things each addresses.
Do Teachers Have Stereotypes About Gifted Children? esearch shows that intellectually gifted children are quite simi- events happen together and become linked in memory. Individu- als who have very high IQs are likely to be vivid, as are those who istics, social relationships, and well-being (Bergold & others, are socially awkward. When these characteristics occur together, 2015). Yet, there are two (opposing) stereo- we are more likely to notice them and think types of gifted students. One suggests that they are related. Of course, they are not these students possess more desirable charac- (hence the term illusory). teristics: Gifted students are friendlier, kinder, The fact that even teachers hold these and more conscientious than average students. stereotypes is troubling. If a student does not The other stereotype is that gifted students fit the stereotype for giftedness, will he or have less desirable characteristics: They are she be less likely to be identified by teachers social misfits and are less creative, more intro- or parents and therefore less likely to benefit verted, less gregarious, less friendly, and so- from special instruction? This stereotype cially incompetent (Preckel & others, 2015). might also affect how children who do not fit People in general may hold such stereo- the stereotype are treated in gifted pro- types, but a key question is whether teachers, grams. Guidebooks for parents of gifted chil- who are most likely to encounter these children dren sometimes warn them that their children and know of their gifted status, hold a stereo- may be socially awkward and emotionally type about gifted children. Do teachers hold unstable (Preckel & others, 2015). In a sense, stereotyped beliefs about gifted kids? Unfortu- these guidebooks treat high intelligence as a nately research suggests that they do. (first) Aleksander Kaczmarek/iStock/Getty Images; social disability, potentially perpetuating the (second) © Lane Oatey/Blue Jean Images/Getty For example, in one experiment, 321 teach- stereotype. Images ers and students studying education were pre- Nurturing intelligence in all people is an im- sented with vignettes describing identical portant goal for society. An intellectually gifted situations in which they were called in to be the substitute teacher child, no matter his or her ethnicity or disability status, deserves the for a class (Baudson & Preckel, 2013). One student in the class was chance to realize his or her potential. Even if a child is a star ath- described as either gifted or average. The participants then rated lete, a popular social butterfly, or a gregarious class clown, maxi- the target child on various personality traits. There were no differ- mizing his or her intellectual abilities is vital not only to the child but ences between raters who were actual teachers and those in train- to society at large. ing. In both groups, gifted students were rated as less extraverted, WHAT When you think of a gifted child, what are the first less emotionally stable, and less agreeable—that is, less nice. DO YOU characteristics to come to mind? Clearly, then, teachers and prospective teachers in these studies THINK? How might ethnic and gender stereotypes appear to hold the social misfit stereotype of gifted students. influence whether a child receives gifted Why do these stereotypes exist? One reason may be an illu- education? sory correlation. Illusory correlations occur when two vivid
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||