INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in public interest in enhancing student well-being, which encompasses social, psychological, physical, and cognitive dimensions Social well-being involves relationships, support, and communication skills, while psychological well-being pertains to emotions and mental health Physical well-being reflects health and lifestyle habits, and cognitive well-being relates to intellectual and academic factors Although all four dimensions contribute positively to student development, social and emotional well-being (SEWB) is considered the most crucial for the overall growth of children.
Reichl & Hymel, 2007; Silverman & Golon, 2008; Peterson & Morris, 2010; Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg & Schellinger, 2011; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012) Specifically, Greene (2004) has suggested that SEWB is essential for
Developing resilience and forming healthy relationships are essential for improving academic performance and coping with stress Success and productivity in the workplace depend on effective problem-solving and decision-making skills Additionally, infusing interest and challenge into the curriculum enhances learning experiences (Greene, 2004, p 31).
Developing social and emotional well-being (SEWB) skills is essential for students to thrive both academically and personally The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) highlights that children with strong SEWB exhibit enhanced personal identities, including increased self-confidence and self-reliance These attributes empower them to effectively navigate challenges and achieve success in life.
Social and emotional well-being (SEWB) is crucial for students' overall health and future development, making it a vital objective for educational systems (Bridgeland et al., 2013; Weissberg et al., 2011) Therefore, enhancing SEWB should be a key focus for all educational frameworks, including those for gifted students However, while there is extensive research on the SEWB of mainstream students, studies specifically addressing the SEWB of gifted students remain relatively scarce (Coleman & Cross, 2014).
A possible assumption was that there were probably no differences between gifted and non-gifted students in terms of SEWB (Nelihart et al., 2002)
Current literature indicates that gifted students may experience lower social-emotional well-being (SEWB) compared to their non-gifted peers, despite their higher academic intelligence While they possess the cognitive ability to understand the complexities of the world, their emotional and social skills may not align with their intellectual capabilities Gifted students often face unique challenges, such as difficulties in initiating and maintaining relationships, resolving conflicts, and effectively communicating their feelings Additionally, they may encounter more serious issues like trauma, career development impasses, and poor coping strategies Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the significant role of SEWB in gifted education, as these students may require tailored support from educators and parents to foster their personal development.
In Vietnam, the educational system prioritizes cognitive abilities over the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of gifted students, leading to an overwhelming focus on memorization and a heavy school workload that necessitates private tutoring (Dang, 2011; Phu, 2013) Gifted students face immense pressure to excel academically and prepare for critical exams, which not only impacts their future prospects but also elevates their family's reputation (Huy, 2012; Thai & Falaris, 2014) Consequently, the SEWB of these students is often neglected, resulting in detrimental effects on their mental health (Hoang, Minh & Tu, 2009) Research indicates that 82.90% of senior students in specialized high schools in Hanoi experience varying levels of stress, while 74.00% of gifted students report mild to moderate stress levels (Thuy, 2011; Nguyen, Hoang & Nong, 2015) Additionally, those living away from home report higher stress levels, suggesting that academic pressure combined with a lack of parental support exacerbates mental health issues among gifted learners in Vietnam.
Most research has concentrated on the academic needs of gifted students (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Garvis, 2014; Gross, 2004), leaving a gap in understanding their social, emotional, and well-being (SEWB) aspects, particularly among gifted adolescents In the Vietnamese context, there is a significant lack of empirical studies addressing this important issue.
Such a lack of emphasis placed on this research topic has motivated me to conduct an in-depth exploration on the SEWB of GT in a Vietnamese High School.
Research aims
This study aims to explore the social and emotional strengths and weaknesses of gifted and talented (GT) individuals by gathering insights from GT students, their teachers, and parents By employing a multi-perspective approach, the research seeks to enhance the understanding of the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of GT individuals.
This study aims to explore the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of Gifted and Talented (GT) students through a series of research questions First, it investigates GT students' self-perception of their SEWB Second, it examines how teachers perceive the SEWB of these students Third, the study looks into parents' perspectives on their children's SEWB Finally, it seeks to identify any discrepancies between the self-assessment of GT students and the evaluations provided by their teachers and parents.
Scope of the study
Being gifted is not a universal trait but rather indicates exceptional potential in specific areas compared to peers of similar age and experience (Gagné, 2008) This study specifically examines adolescents recognized as academically gifted who are enrolled in gifted high schools, following the identification model proposed by Pfeiffer (2012), detailed in chapter 2.
This study was carried out at Phan Boi Chau High School for the Gifted in Nghe An, Vietnam, involving students, teachers, and parents The research site holds personal significance as it is the former high school of the researcher, situated in the central region of the country.
The current study, part of a BA thesis, focuses on a researcher’s hometown, providing a suitable and manageable context for participant recruitment and data collection The research involved 1,300 gifted and talented (GT) students from 39 classes, along with their 1,300 parents and 39 form teachers.
Significance of the study
This study holds both theoretical and practical importance, aiming to enhance the understanding of the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of Vietnamese high school gifted students in the context of international research.
In Vietnam, policymakers and educators have openly acknowledged that the social and emotional needs of gifted students are often overlooked in favor of academic priorities, highlighting a significant gap in the attention given to their holistic development during various governmental conferences.
The research aims to investigate the level of Social and Emotional Well-Being (SEWB) among Vietnamese high school students, an area that has received limited empirical attention in Vietnam This study seeks to address the existing gap in the literature regarding the SEWB of this demographic.
Identifying discrepancies in perceptions of gifted and talented (GT) students' social and emotional well-being (SEWB) among teachers and parents can provide valuable insights into the challenges these students face This understanding enables educators and parents to develop effective strategies to support GT students socially and emotionally As a result, GT students can thrive in an environment that fosters their full potential and personal growth.
Organization of the study
This research consists of five chapters, among which the first one –
The introduction highlights the gaps in the Social and Emotional Wellbeing (SEWB) of Indigenous communities in Vietnam, establishing the rationale for this study It outlines the research aim and scope, presents key research questions, and discusses the anticipated significance of the findings Chapter 2, titled "Literature Review," offers a comprehensive overview of existing literature relevant to the topic.
The article explores the historical conceptualization and investigation of "Giftedness" and "Social and Emotional Well-being," ultimately identifying appropriate frameworks for the current study Chapter 3, titled "Methodology," details the research design, sampling procedures, data collection methods, and data analysis processes The researcher outlines these methodologies and justifies the selection and execution of specific methods Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study.
The discussion highlights the key findings of the research, providing substantial evidence for the research question In the concluding chapter, the main findings are summarized, and the discussion on the topic is extended Additionally, implications drawn from the results are presented, followed by an acknowledgment of the study's limitations and suggestions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Giftedness
The concept of giftedness has been a topic of debate throughout history, with no clear consensus on its definition Initially defined by Terman (1926) as the top one percent in general intellectual ability measured by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, this view was later supported by Robinson, Ziegler, and Gallagher (2000), who regarded giftedness as an innate quality assessable through cognitive or IQ testing However, contemporary theories emphasize a broader understanding of giftedness, recognizing the importance of various developmental aspects beyond mere intellectual ability (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius).
Giftedness is defined as children's natural special abilities that can develop into exceptional talents in specific areas (Gagné, 2005) According to Pfeiffer (2012), gifted students exhibit the ability or potential to excel in various fields Although there are differing theories and some overlaps, it is crucial to recognize that the concept of giftedness is influenced by temporal, geographical, and cultural contexts, as well as reinforced by social values (McAlpine, 2004).
18 have been many theoretical models of giftedness and talent development, three following models are among the most popular ones used by researchers
2.1.1 Renzulli’s Three Ring Conception of Giftedness (1986)
The three-ring conception of giftedness is a portrayal of the main dimensions reflecting the potential of the gifted human Regarding intellectual domains, Renzulli
Gifted students are defined by high ability, creativity, and task commitment, as illustrated in a model with three interconnected rings These rings represent key factors influencing gifted behaviors: (1) task commitment, which encompasses determination, perseverance, and positive energy; (2) creativity, characterized by curiosity, originality, and a willingness to challenge norms; and (3) above-average ability, indicating performance in the top 10% of any field Surrounding these rings is a houndstooth pattern symbolizing environmental influences that foster gifted behaviors The interplay of these three traits significantly contributes to the development of gifted individuals.
Figure 2.1 Renzulli's three-ring conception of giftedness (Renzulli, 1986) Renzulli’s (1986) conception of giftedness proposes a general identification of the GT, which is not based on academic performance only, but also dependent
A student may be recognized as gifted and talented (GT) despite having average examination scores if they demonstrate exceptional interests or remarkable potential in areas like art and social leadership, or if they exhibit intrinsic motivation.
One limitation of this model is its inability to effectively identify students with above-average ability and creativity, as it often fails to pinpoint their specific areas of interest or talent (Chaffey, 2004) This shortcoming results in insufficient motivation and stimulation to nurture their gifts, ultimately leading to a lack of commitment to tasks Consequently, to enhance the identification of giftedness, this theory should be complemented by additional models for more comprehensive results.
2.1.2 Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983, 2011)
In 1983, Gardner defined giftedness as inherent special abilities that can be cultivated over time He introduced seven types of intelligences: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal This framework was later expanded to include naturalist intelligence and discussions on spiritual and existential intelligence in 2011.
“giftedness” is related to specific intelligences which are defined as the ability, talent or skill enabling people to demonstrate their particular strength in specific fields
Figure 2.2 Gardner’s model of Multiple Intelligences (1983, 2011)
Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences is instrumental in recognizing and nurturing a child's strengths, while Hoerr (1994) further enriches the conversation around giftedness This theory has been effectively utilized as a framework for identifying gifted individuals, as noted by Hernández-Torano et al.
& Sáinz, 2013; Kuo, Maker, Su, & Hu, 2010) and education (Callahan, Tomlinson, Moon, Tomchin, & Plucker, 1995; Carpintero, Cabezas, & Sánchez, 2009) of high- ability students in many different countries
Opponents of the current educational model argue that it inadequately addresses the unique needs of gifted students, as highlighted by Le Sueur (2002), who emphasized the necessity of recognizing and catering to these special requirements Teaching strategies designed for various types of intelligence often fall short for gifted individuals Additionally, while multiple intelligences may stem from genetic factors or be cultivated through environmental and social influences, this notion faces criticism for potentially conflicting with the established theory of general intelligence (Geake, 2008) Consequently, integrating Gardner's theory with Renzulli’s (1986) model is essential for educators to develop a comprehensive understanding of gifted education principles.
2.1.3 Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (2005, 2008)
Gagné's developmental model of giftedness distinguishes between giftedness and talent, defining "giftedness" as a child's innate abilities in various domains, while "talent" refers to developed skills or high performance that are cultivated through catalysts and external influences (Gagné, 2005) This differentiation highlights the importance of nurturing natural abilities to achieve excellence.
21 students owning unique abilities which has not been manifested yet are still labeled as the gifted
Figure 2.3 Gagné's differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT 2.0; 2008 update; Gagné, 2010)
Giftedness refers to an individual's potential or aptitude in areas such as intellectual, creative, social, perceptual, or physical abilities This potential undergoes a developmental process, shaped into talent through the interplay of environmental and intrapersonal factors Over time, talent can manifest in various fields, including academics, technology, arts, social services, and athletics Effective talent development necessitates systematic activities and investment; without proper training, individuals may struggle to cultivate specific skills A gifted child typically performs in the top 10% of their peers in developed competencies related to a given task.
The model of Gagné’s, is regarded as the extension or development of Renzulli’s (1986) Three ring model of giftedness The differentiation of two term
The distinction between "giftedness" and "talent" addresses a crucial aspect of Renzulli’s model, highlighting task commitment as a key trait of giftedness Borland (1989) emphasized the importance of this distinction, stating that Gagne’s terminology is among the most useful for operationalizing these concepts While this model is widely adopted in gifted education policies in Western countries, its application in Vietnam remains limited due to historical social norms surrounding gifted students In contrast to the flexible identification of giftedness in the West, Vietnam primarily recognizes giftedness based on exceptional academic performance, typically determined by test results in specialized subjects, as regulated by the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training in 2012.
2.1.4 Steven Pfeiffer ‘s tripartite (pronounced try-par-tight) model of giftedness
A gifted child, as defined by Steven Pfeiffer (2012), is one who is more likely than their peers to achieve exceptional accomplishments in areas that are culturally valued, given similar age, experience, and opportunities.
The model of Pfeiffer provides a nuanced and inclusive definition of giftedness, in which this term is viewed under three “distinct but complimentary lenses” (Pfeiffer, 2012, p 8):
Figure 2.4 Steven Pfeiffer ‘s tripartite (pronounced try-par-tight) model of giftedness (2012)
The model presents three distinct categories of giftedness, differing from Renzulli’s Three Ring conception, as individuals need only fit into one category The first category includes learners with exceptionally high intelligence, often achieving top scores on school tests and demonstrating advanced speech and reading skills from an early age (Pfeiffer, 2012; Gross, 1993) The second category encompasses gifted learners who exhibit above-average academic performance, characterized by a strong desire for learning and a readiness to tackle challenges (Pfeiffer, 2012) Lastly, the third category identifies gifted children with high potential, marked by their intense curiosity and dedication to learning, even if they do not consistently rank at the top academically.
24 percentiles of the class’s testing, they demonstrate the potential to excel once they have necessary tools
The tripartite model effectively balances complexity and simplicity, particularly resonating with the Vietnamese perception of "giftedness." According to the 2012 Regulation of Organization and Operation of Gifted High Schools by the Ministry of Education and Training, students are admitted to gifted schools based on their performance in three core subjects: English, Vietnamese literature, and Mathematics, alongside a specialized subject test Notably, the score from the specialized subject is weighted twice, contributing to the cumulative score that determines the most suitable candidates for admission.
To be accepted into the Gifted and Talented (GT) program, students must excel in various academic tests, aligning with Pfeiffer's (2012) criteria for identifying academically gifted learners Unlike Gagné's (2005) model, which labels students with unmanifested unique abilities as gifted, Pfeiffer's approach offers a more inclusive definition based on academic performance This definition resonates with how gifted children are typically identified in Vietnam, making it the preferred choice for defining GT in this study.
Students’ social-emotional well-being
The concept of "well-being" has evolved through various models over time, yet all emphasize its complex and multi-dimensional nature, which cannot be measured by a single factor (Borgonovi & Pál, 2016) The World Health Organization (2014) succinctly defines well-being as a state where individuals recognize their abilities, manage everyday stresses, work productively, and contribute to their communities.
SEWB, or Social and Emotional Well-Being, is a crucial component of overall well-being, encompassing how individuals perceive themselves and their relationships with others It reflects a person's resilience and coping abilities when facing everyday challenges, as highlighted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012).
Hamilton and Redmond (2010) suggested that the level of SEWB is affected by 2 separate, yet interrelated domains: internal and external factors
Figure 2.5 Internal and external factors impacting upon the SEWB of gifted children
Figure 2.5 illustrates that internal factors stemming from giftedness include asynchronous development, a sense of feeling different, heightened perception, high self-expectations, perfectionism, and unique relationships with peers.
In contrast, external factors arise due to the gifted child’s interaction with the environment (comprising understanding of worth through external expectation, and educational conformity)
This model assesses Social and Emotional Wellbeing (SEWB) by examining the influence of individual and environmental factors, highlighting the importance of exploring the experiences of the GT community in relation to these areas.
Each gifted child possesses unique degrees of talent and personal traits, leading to diverse social and emotional experiences These variations in internal characteristics contribute to differing social and emotional well-being (SEWB) among gifted individuals (Robinson, 2008).
Asynchronous development: Research shows that some gifted and talented children develop asynchronously (Akin, 2005; Kline & Meckstroth, 1985; Webb,
1994) This refers to the mismatch between cognitive, emotional, and physical development of gifted individuals (Kline & Meckstroth, 1985)
In fact, the Columbus Group of psychologists, educators, and parents in 1991 did emphasize this uneven development in their definition of giftedness:
Giftedness involves asynchronous development, where exceptional cognitive abilities and heightened emotional intensity lead to unique inner experiences that differ significantly from the average This asynchrony tends to intensify with increased intellectual capacity, making gifted individuals particularly vulnerable To support their optimal development, it is essential to adapt parenting, teaching, and counseling approaches to meet their distinct needs.
Gifted children often exhibit advanced mental maturity compared to their chronological peers, yet they may experience disparities in physical and emotional development, leading to internal conflicts (Silverman, 2002) This can result in feelings of frustration and anger, as gifted children may navigate multiple developmental stages simultaneously (Akin, 2005) The issue is particularly pronounced in students with higher IQs and those who have significant gaps between their strengths and weaknesses, such as twice-exceptional children who are gifted but also face learning or developmental disabilities (Silverman, 2002).
Highly perceptive: Compared to the non-gifted, gifted children tend to be more
Gifted children often exhibit heightened sensitivity to various stimuli, including movements, words, patterns, numbers, and physical phenomena (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002) While these intensities can provide certain advantages, they also create challenges, as gifted individuals perceive the world in a uniquely complex manner For them, a simple touch can feel like a blow, a sound can become overwhelming noise, and emotions can be experienced with extreme intensity—transforming joy into ecstasy and failure into a profound loss (Delisle & Galbraith, 2002).
Winkler and Voight (2016) identified five domains of sensitivities or overexcitabilities in gifted individuals: intellect, emotion, imagination, sensation, and psychomotor ability This classification aids in recognizing gifted talent (GT) and understanding how these individuals interact with their environment and the support they need Intellectual overexcitability, in particular, is characterized by a strong passion for learning, critical thinking skills, intense curiosity, and sometimes precociousness, which help distinguish gifted individuals from others.
Gifted students often face social and emotional challenges both in and out of school due to their exceptional intellectual abilities Research by Persson (2010) indicates that their advanced cognitive skills can lead to boredom with monotonous learning, resulting in underachievement and a lack of interest in schoolwork This disinterest may drive gifted individuals to seek out new and complex experiences, which can be misinterpreted by others as stubbornness Additionally, gifted students frequently exhibit emotional overexcitability, showing heightened sensitivity to their own and others' feelings (Kline & Meckstroth, 1985) This deep empathy, as noted by Clark (2008), can become burdensome, as these students may feel overwhelmed by their inability to alleviate the emotional struggles of those around them, leading to frustration and helplessness.
Gifted individuals often experience unique challenges related to their social and emotional well-being (SEWB), particularly through psychomotor, sensual, and imaginational overexcitabilities Psychomotor overexcitability manifests as an organic excess of energy, characterized by a love for movement, rapid speech, impulsiveness, and a drive for action, which can be mistaken for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Distinguishing between giftedness and ADHD requires careful observation of the child's behaviors, especially when they exhibit restlessness due to insufficient stimulation Sensual overexcitability involves a heightened sensitivity to sensory experiences, leading to early appreciation of aesthetic pleasures but also potential discomfort with sensory overload Lastly, imaginational overexcitability is marked by a rich imagination and a propensity for fantasy, often causing gifted individuals to disengage in traditional classroom settings where creativity is not emphasized.
Experiencing a sense of difference can significantly harm self-esteem and peer relationships, as highlighted by Morawska and Sanders (2009) Additionally, this feeling often leads to discomfort and a lack of confidence among gifted and talented individuals when navigating social challenges and forming connections with others (Lee et al., 2012).
Research by Coleman, Micko, and Cross (2015) highlights that gifted children experience distinct feelings stemming from their unique abilities and motivation, which set them apart from their peers As defined in section 2.1.4, these gifted individuals demonstrate significantly higher academic capabilities compared to non-gifted students, as evidenced by a study involving 1,526 gifted American children.
Research by Lee et al (2012) involving 29 adolescents indicates that disparities in abilities between gifted students and their peers can adversely affect the learning process This finding is further corroborated by Gross (2004), who observed the reading processes of 60 children, including both gifted and non-gifted individuals, highlighting the differences in their learning experiences.
Forty gifted students deliberately adjusted their reading speed or paused their reading for two weeks to avoid standing out from their age peers This behavior highlights that even positive disparities can be perceived negatively by gifted children when compared to their peers.
METHODOLOGY
The setting
The study was conducted at Phan Boi Chau high school for the gifted in Nghe
An is a province located in central Vietnam, home to a specialized school that accommodates approximately 1,300 academically gifted students This institution offers a curriculum focused on 12 subjects, including Literature, History, Geography, Russian, English, French, Japanese, Mathematics, Information Technology, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology Students are admitted based on their performance in entrance tests, following the guidelines set forth in the Regulation of Organization and Operation of Gifted High Schools by the Ministry of Education and Training in 2012.
The site of this study is the researcher’s former high school, situated in their hometown, making it an ideal and accessible location for participant recruitment and data collection for the BA thesis.
Research design
This research utilized a quantitative design to gather data on a large scale through surveys, a method often employed when involving a significant number of participants (Kothari, 2004) The extensive data collection from a broad population enhances the ability to generalize the findings (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000).
Participants and sampling
The current study involves three key groups: gifted students, their form teachers, and parents from Phan Boi Chau gifted high schools Including these diverse stakeholders provides a comprehensive understanding of the situation, leading to more informed suggestions.
The study involved 1,300 students from 36 gifted classes, aged 15 to 18, with a majority being female (71.2%) Initial data analysis revealed no significant differences in social and emotional strengths and weaknesses among students of varying ages, genders, and majors, indicating a shared perspective among participants Demographic details of the student participants are illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2 Demographic information of gifted students participants
In addition, the research also targeted at all parents of the gifted (1300 parents) and
39 form teachers The 39 teachers who participated in this study were form teachers of gifted students They were the ones who had thorough understanding of their students
Data collection instruments
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a concise screening tool aimed at identifying emotional and behavioral issues in children and adolescents aged 2 to 17 years (Goodman, 1997) Comprising 25 items, the SDQ is organized into five key subscales: emotional problems, conduct/behavioral problems, hyperactivity/inattention issues, peer relationship difficulties, and prosocial behavior.
The assessment consists of five questions that evaluate students' strengths in prosocial behavior and twenty questions that measure various weaknesses, including emotional issues, conduct problems, hyperactivity, and peer difficulties Participants respond using a three-point scale: 1 for "not true," 2 for "somewhat true," and 3 for "certainly true."
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is an effective tool for assessing social and emotional well-being (SEWB) due to its brevity and inclusion of both strengths and difficulties Recognized globally for measuring child mental health issues, the SDQ has been utilized in numerous studies and translated into over 40 languages, making it a practical and user-friendly option It offers versions for self-reporting by adolescents aged 11 to 17, as well as for parents and teachers Extensive research has validated the questionnaire's psychometric properties, revealing a consistent five-factor structure that aligns with its intended measurement domains Furthermore, the SDQ demonstrates satisfactory reliability, confirming its effectiveness as a mental health assessment tool.
Giannakopoulos, Tzavara, Dimitrakaki, Kolaitis, Rotsika &Tountas, 2009; Koskelainen, Sourander & Vauras, 2001) In the current study, the reliability of the questionnaire was also at an acceptable level, which was presented in Chapter 4.
Translating and piloting the questionnaire
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) was adapted and translated into Vietnamese to ensure accessibility for participants with limited English proficiency To validate the translation's accuracy, an experienced translator converted the Vietnamese version back to English.
After finishing the first draft of the questionnaire, 93 participants (45 students,
A pilot study was conducted with 45 parents and three teachers randomly selected from three classes at Phan Boi Chau High School to evaluate the clarity of instructions, the conciseness of questions, and the overall structure of the questionnaire.
The adapted version of the questionnaire underwent significant revisions based on the supervisor's critique and feedback from pilot respondents Unnecessary or confusing references were removed to enhance the clarity and conciseness of the questions, particularly in questions 1, 12, 15, and 25 For instance, in question 12, the phrase “I fight a lot I can make other people do what I want” was streamlined by omitting the latter clause, allowing participants to concentrate on the primary message of the statement.
The breakdown of items into the five scales of the adapted version is seen in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 Subscales of the adapted SDQ
As noted in students’ SDQ
3 Often complains of headaches I get a lot of headaches
13 Often unhappy, downhearted I am often unhappy
16 Nervous or clingy in new situations
I am nervous in new situations
24 Many fears, easily scared I have many fears
5 Often has temper tantrums or hot tempers
7 Generally obedient I usually do as I am told
12 Often fights with other children I fight a lot
18 Often lies or cheats I am often accused of lying and cheating
22 Steals from home, school or elsewhere
I take things that are not mine
21 Thinks things out before acting I think before I do things
25 Sees tasks through to the end I finish the work I am doing
6 Rather solitary, tends to play alone
I am usually on my own
11 Has at least one good friend I have one good friend or more
14 Generally liked by other people Other people my age generally like me
19 Picked on or bullied by other children
Other children or young people pick on me
23 Gets on better with adults than other children
I get on better with adults than with people my own age
1 Considerate of other people’s feelings
I try to be nice to other people
4 Shares readily with other children I usually share with others
9 Helpful if someone is hurt I am helpful if someone is hurt
17 Kind to younger children I am kind to younger children
20 Often volunteers to help others I often volunteer to help others
Following the completion of the survey, researchers conducted a three-day period during which they administered three sets of questionnaires to gather quantitative data from gifted students, teachers, and parents The surveys for the first two groups were distributed directly at the school, while the parents' responses were collected indirectly, as students were tasked with bringing the questionnaires home for their parents to complete.
Over a three-day data collection period, 3,900 questionnaires were distributed to participants, with each group receiving 1,300 surveys Each student and parent completed one questionnaire, while form teachers were required to fill out 30 to 35 surveys based on their class size.
After distribution, 2258 out of 3900 surveys were successfully collected with
936 questionnaires from GT, 622 questionnaires from the parents and 700 questionnaires from teachers
The return rates of the survey varied significantly among different respondent groups, with GTs leading at 72%, followed by teachers at approximately 53.8% and parents at 47.8% The lower response rate from parents may be attributed to a lack of direct facilitation from the researcher, which could have diminished their motivation to complete the survey at home Additionally, some students forgot to pass the survey to their parents despite reminders, and others, living far from home, were unable to deliver the questionnaire These factors collectively contributed to the limited number of participating parents in the study.
After gathering the SDQ questionnaires from all participant groups, the researcher synthesized and analyzed the data This process commenced with the entry of quantitative data into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, followed by importing the data into IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Version.
23 for analysis Specifically, the following analyses were attempted: a) Assessment of scale reliability b) Descriptive statistics (mean score and standard deviation) a Assessment of reliability
Reliability is defined as the extent to which a research instrument yields stable and consistent results, indicating that it can produce the same answers on multiple occasions (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011) A reliable instrument is essential for researchers seeking dependable data, and one of the most widely used methods for assessing reliability is Cronbach’s alpha value (Tavakol & Dennick).
According to George and Marley (2003, as cited in Gliem & Gliem, 2003), scale reliability is deemed acceptable when the alpha value exceeds 0.60, while values below 0.50 are considered unacceptable, with an ideal value around 0.80 In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha values for various subscales were calculated three times using responses from three different participant groups, employing SPSS (Version 23) The findings of the subscale reliability test are detailed in Chapter 4.
Descriptive statistics quantitatively summarize the essential features of a data set, focusing on measures of central tendency and variability Key calculations include the mean (M), which represents the average value, and the standard deviation (SD), which reflects the dispersion of data around the mean A low standard deviation signifies that data points are clustered closely to the mean, whereas a high standard deviation indicates a broader spread of values These statistical tools are crucial for understanding the distribution and relationship of data within a sample.
2010) In the current study, data collected from three different groups of participants were described using the descriptive statistics M and SD.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
GT’s perception of their SEWB
In section B of the questionnaire, GT assessed their social-emotional well-being (SEWB) by rating their strengths and difficulties on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 indicates "not true" and 3 signifies "certainly true." Table 4.1 summarizes the Cronbach’s alpha values for the five sub-scales within the students' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).
Table 4.1 Cronbach’s α reliabilities of five sub-scales (students’ SDQ)
According to George & Marley (2003, as cited in Gliem & Gliem, 2003), the scale reliability is considered acceptable if the alpha value goes beyond 0.70 and
In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha values for the self-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) subscales ranged from 0.69 to 0.84, indicating a fair to good level of reliability for each sub-scale An alpha value below 0.50 is considered unacceptable, highlighting the robustness of the findings.
The comparison of mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for each sub-scale from the perspectives of gifted and talented (GT) individuals was conducted, with results displayed in Table 4.2 Higher scores in emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, and peer problems indicate greater perceived difficulties faced by GT individuals Conversely, scores on the prosocial scale reflect the total strengths of these individuals.
Table 4.4 Mean and Standard Deviation of GT’s SEWB (Students’ SDQ)
(**Note: M.1.1 =Mean score of emotional problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
SD.1.1= Standard deviation of emotional problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
M.1.2= Mean score of conduct problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
SD.1.2= Standard deviation of conduct problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
M.1.3= Mean score of hyperactivity problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
SD.1.3= Standard deviation of hyperactivity problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
M.1.4= Mean score of peer problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
SD.1.4= Standard deviation of peer problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
M.1.5= Mean score of prosocial problems subscale (Students’ SDQ)
SD.1.5= Standard deviation of prosocial problems subscale (Students’ SDQ))
As could be seen from Table 4.2, the figure for the prosocial subscale stood at a high degree of 2.63, which showed that GT’s SEWB, from their point of view, was
44 relatively positive In terms of difficulties, they believed hyperactivity was the most common and frequent issue (M.1.3=1.67) that they had to face In other words, the
In the current study, GT exhibited increased energy and excitability in various situations, both in and out of school The high standard deviation for hyperactivity (SD 1.3=0.75) indicates that student participants experienced varying degrees of hyperactivity issues Conversely, self-reported scores for emotional problems were relatively low at 1.43, suggesting that these students infrequently encountered emotional challenges.
The study found that the mean scores for peer problems and conduct problems were low, at 1.28 (SD = 0.57) and 1.23 (SD = 0.66), respectively This suggests that gifted students in this research did not face challenges in peer interactions or in exhibiting appropriate behaviors across various situations.
Teachers’ perception of GT’s SEWB
Similar to the students’ SDQ, the internal consistency of the Teachers’ SDQ was also investigated The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of five sub-scales were shown in Table 4.3
Table 4 Cronbach’s α reliabilities of five sub-scales (teachers’ SDQ)
The table shows that the Cronbach’s α values for all factors ranged from 0.63 to 0.85, demonstrating an acceptable level of reliability Detailed descriptive scores for each subscale can be found in Table 4.4.
Table 4.5 Mean and Standard Deviation of GT’s SEWB (teachers’ SDQ)
(**Note: M.2.1 =Mean score of emotional problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
SD.2.1= Standard deviation of emotional problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
M.2.2= Mean score of conduct problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
SD.2.2= Standard deviation of conduct problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
M.2.3= Mean score of hyperactivity problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
SD.2.3= Standard deviation of hyperactivity problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
M.2.4= Mean score of peer problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
SD.2.4= Standard deviation of peer problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
M.2.5= Mean score of prosocial problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ)
SD.2.5= Standard deviation of prosocial problems subscale (teachers’ SDQ))
From the teachers' perspective, gifted students (GT) exhibit notable social and emotional advantages, rated at 2.37 However, they face significant challenges, particularly with hyperactivity, which received the highest difficulty rating of 1.55 Peer and emotional problems were rated lower, with mean scores of 1.24 and 1.16, respectively Additionally, teachers believe that conduct issues are the least prevalent among their gifted students, with a mean score of 1.02.
The standard deviation of hyperactivity took the lead at 0.87, nearly tripling that of conduct problems which stood at the bottom This indicated a significant
46 dispersion in the value of hyperactivity among participants while scores for conduct problems are closer to the mean of the set.
Parents’ perception on GT’s SEWB
With parents’ perspectives towards GT’s SEWB being explored through the SDQ, the Cronbach’s α reliabilities of five sub-scales were also revealed in the table below:
Table 4.3 Cronbach’s α reliabilities of five sub-scales (parents’ SDQ)
Table 4.5 indicates that all subscales achieved Cronbach’s α values between 0.68 and 0.8, demonstrating an acceptable level of reliability The descriptive scores for each subscale are detailed in the table below.
Table 4.6 Mean and Standard Deviation of GT’s SEWB (parents’ SDQ)
(**Note: M.3.1 =Mean score of emotional problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
SD.3.1= Standard deviation of emotional problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
M.3.2= Mean score of conduct problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
SD.3.2= Standard deviation of conduct problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
M.3.3= Mean score of hyperactivity problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
SD.3.3= Standard deviation of hyperactivity problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
M.3.4= Mean score of peer problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
SD.3.4= Standard deviation of peer problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
M.3.5= Mean score of prosocial problems subscale (parents’ SDQ)
SD.3.5= Standard deviation of prosocial problems subscale (parents’ SDQ))
Parents rated the prosocial behavior of gifted children at 2.7, indicating significant social and emotional benefits that enhance their social and emotional well-being (SEWB) However, gifted children faced challenges, with hyperactivity being the most common issue (M.2.3=1.64), followed by peer problems (M.2.4=1.52) and emotional difficulties (M.2.1=1.4) Conduct problems were rated the lowest at 1.15, suggesting that these children are less likely to struggle with behavioral issues across various contexts.
It should be noted that hyperactivity also had the highest standard deviation
(SD.2.3= 0.87), which indicates a great variation in the parents’ perception toward these issues Conduct problems , however, possessed the lowest standard deviation
Comparisons on the SDQ among parent, teacher and GT groups
To gain a deeper understanding of the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of gifted students, this study compared the perceptions of teachers, parents, and the gifted students themselves Table 4.7 presents descriptive scores for each group, highlighting both similarities and differences in their views on the SEWB of gifted students.
Table 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation of GT’s SEWB (GT’s, parents’, teachers’ SDQ)
4 Peer problems 1.28 (SD=0.57) 1.24 (SD=0.54) 1.52 (SD=0.69)
All participant groups expressed a positive perspective on the social and emotional strengths of gifted and talented (GT) individuals, with prosocial subscale scores ranging from 2.37 to 2.7, indicating a medium to high level of agreement These scores were significantly higher than those for other subscales that addressed difficulties Notably, parents rated the prosocial domain the highest, with a mean score of 2.7, suggesting that they perceive their children's social and emotional well-being (SEWB) in the most favorable light compared to other groups.
The evaluations of obstacles among three participant groups revealed significant differences across four subscales Notably, teachers consistently rated difficulties, except for peer problems (M.2.4=1.24), lower than the other groups, with scores of M.2.1=1.16, M.2.2=1.02, and M.2.3=1.55, indicating a lack of attention to the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of gifted students (GT) In contrast, both parents and gifted students themselves demonstrated a greater awareness of these social and emotional challenges.
Of the four social emotional problems investigated, all three groups also appeared to share the same view that hyperactivity was the most challenging issue for
49 the GT (M.1.3=1.67, M.2.3=1.55, M.3.3=1.64) whereas conduct problems were perceived as least problematic (M.1.2 =1.23, M.2.2=1.02; M.3.2 =1.15)
There were notable differences in the perceptions of social and emotional issues between gifted students (GT) and their parents and teachers Gifted students rated their emotional problems significantly high, with a mean score of 1.42 and a standard deviation of 0.69, making it their second greatest concern after hyperactivity In contrast, parents and teachers did not view these emotional problems as seriously as they did peer-related issues.
In most instances, parents' scores were more aligned with those of gifted and talented (GT) students than with those of teachers, except in the case of peer problems This observation is significant and will be further explored later in the study.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Summary of the findings
This study aimed to explore the social and emotional well-being of gifted and talented (GT) individuals by examining the perspectives of GT students, their teachers, and their parents, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses in their experiences.
Participants generally viewed gifted and talented (GT) individuals positively, noting medium to high social and emotional advantages, with parents expressing the most optimism and teachers the least Hyperactivity was widely recognized as the primary challenge faced by GT, while conduct problems were deemed less significant Notable differences in perceptions emerged, with parents identifying peer relationship issues as particularly problematic, a view not shared by other groups Both GT and their parents acknowledged the severity of emotional challenges, whereas teachers appeared less aware of these issues Additionally, while conduct difficulties concerned GT, they were not perceived as significant by teachers and parents.
Discussion
First of all, the current study indicated that hyperactivity problems or psychomotor over-excitabilities were the most outstanding challenges faced by the
GT In the current study, behaviors such as poor attention, lack of persistence with
Research indicates that tasks involving impulsivity, restlessness, and nervous habits are common among gifted students (GT) A study by Kerry-Ann and Wright-Scott (2018) explored the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of gifted primary students in Australia, utilizing a mixed-method approach that included insights from parents, children, and teachers The findings revealed that gifted children often struggle with hyperactivity and lack the skills to regulate their emotions and behaviors, leading to psychomotor over-excitabilities In contrast, the current study focuses on gifted high school students, whose characteristics may differ significantly Various hypotheses suggest that the interaction between gifted individuals and their environment can contribute to these challenges One perspective posits that reduced environmental stimuli may increase hyperactivity as a form of self-stimulation Furthermore, researchers Haenlein and Caul (1987) argue that a lack of intrinsic motivation in assigned tasks can diminish attention and engagement among gifted learners.
GT emphasized the importance of addressing conduct or behavioral problems more than other challenges Although parents expressed significant concern regarding these issues, teachers appeared to be unaware of their prevalence in the classroom.
GT These findings were supported by research conducted by van der Meulen et al
In a 2014 study conducted in Amsterdam, parents and teachers of 89 gifted children participated by completing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) before and after the children attended a specialized one-day-a-week school for the gifted Notably, the data collected was not self-reported by the gifted students themselves.
A study revealed that parents prioritize conduct disorders more than teachers do, particularly highlighting issues related to anger and temper among gifted children (GT) While both GT and their parents identified these behaviors as significant challenges, teachers did not share the same perception This discrepancy may stem from gifted children adapting their behavior to align with teachers' expectations in school, leading to a more favorable view of their conduct problems Additionally, teachers noted a high incidence of fighting among children, a concern that was not echoed by GT or their parents.
Parents identified peer difficulties as significant issues impacting gifted students' social and emotional well-being (SEWB) This aligns with existing literature, which emphasizes the importance of peer interactions in the lives of gifted students The study reveals that parents reported a high prevalence of peer problems, indicating their expectations for teachers to address these challenges effectively.
Gifted and talented (GT) students often face significant peer interaction challenges primarily within the school environment Research indicates that these peer problems can stem from various factors, including asynchronous development (Akin, 2005), feelings of differences in ability and motivation (Coleman, 2015; Gross, 1989), and being perceived as different by their peers (Coleman) Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing the social and emotional needs of GT students.
Gifted students often face challenges in peer interactions due to unmet expectations from non-gifted peers, which can widen the social gap (Peterson & Moon, 2008; Wellisch, 2012) Their heightened emotional sensitivity may add pressure during socializing, leading to difficulties that negatively affect their social and emotional well-being (SEWB) (Clarke, 2008) However, positive friendships between gifted students and their peers can enhance their overall well-being, as intimate and lasting relationships provide essential support (Holder and Coleman, 2015).
Research indicates that feelings of loneliness and depression can negatively impact happiness, life satisfaction, and self-esteem However, further studies are necessary to explore the positive aspects of peer relationships and their influence on Generalized Trust's Social and Emotional Well-Being (SEWB), as current research has predominantly concentrated on the negative effects.
Recent research by Morawska and Sanders (2008) involving 211 parents of gifted children aged 2 to 16 in Australia highlights the emotional challenges faced by these children The study utilized the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess parents' views on their gifted children's behavioral and emotional adjustment, revealing that gifted children often experience elevated emotional symptoms and peer-related issues, negatively affecting their overall functioning However, the study did not incorporate insights from teachers or the gifted children themselves, limiting the comparison of perspectives across different stakeholders.
The current study's emotional problems scale revealed that worry was the highest-rated issue among all respondent groups, indicating that gifted children (GT) struggle to maintain calm and confidence in new situations Research by Winstead (1998), which focused on 12 gifted children, found that their worries stemmed from challenges in intellectual, social, emotional, or physical areas Additionally, it is important to highlight that parents in Winstead's study reported their children as experiencing more worry than they themselves acknowledged.
Recent findings align with GT reports indicating that parents observe higher levels of emotional and peer relationship challenges in their gifted children Consequently, it is essential for teachers to be attentive to the concerns of gifted students to aid in their coping strategies By understanding these worries, both parents and educators can engage in meaningful discussions and provide the necessary support for gifted individuals.
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further study
Despite significant efforts by the researcher, this study has unavoidable limitations The reliance on a quantitative research design hindered the ability to explain the quantitative results, which could have been enriched through a mixed-method approach incorporating interviews During data analysis, the researcher identified intriguing extreme cases that warrant further investigation; however, due to time and resource constraints, interviews could not be conducted to gain participants’ insights on their ratings Therefore, it is recommended that future studies allocate sufficient time for interviews to explore these cases in depth and validate the findings.
A significant challenge identified in the Vietnamese context is the absence of document archives pertaining to GT and GT's SEWB Consequently, the findings of the current study cannot be directly linked to prior research, limiting their validity to the specific sample examined within this study.
Exploring the social and emotional well-being (SEWB) of gifted students (GT) is crucial for their overall development Research indicates that students at Phan Boi Chau High School for the Gifted experience notable social and emotional benefits, particularly recognized by their parents Participants unanimously identified hyperactivity as the primary challenge faced by GT, while conduct difficulties were less emphasized However, differing perceptions emerged among participant groups; parents were more concerned about peer interaction issues, while GT students expressed greater anxiety regarding conduct difficulties Additionally, emotional problems, although significant, were perceived differently across groups.
55 by GT and the parents, were less noticed by the teachers These findings, including the discrepancies may have important implications for supporting gifted students
Ongoing communication between parents and teachers is essential to support the social and emotional well-being of gifted students, as both parties may have differing perspectives on their needs It is crucial for them to collaborate and understand their respective roles in fostering a supportive environment at home and school where gifted students feel valued and heard Such positive settings encourage these students to develop self-esteem, resilience, and coping skills, allowing their potential to thrive both academically and personally As Kauffman and Sternberg (2008) emphasize, we must strive to improve our approach to gifted education to ensure justice for our children and society It is time for all stakeholders to take meaningful action to promote the optimal development of gifted students, moving from theory to practice, which, while challenging, is achievable.
Akin, C A (2005) Academic asynchrony Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 60-66 doi:
Aladwan, F (2015) Cognitive and Emotional Needs of the Gifted Students From Themselves Perspective: Survey
Anne Kathryn Soutter, Billy O'Steen & Alison Gilmore (2014) The student well- being model: a conceptual framework for the development of student well-being indicators, International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19:4, 496-
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009) A picture of Australia's children Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) Social and emotional well- being: Development of a children's headline indicator Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Blackett, J., & Hermansson, G (2005) Guidance and counselling of the gifted and talented in New Zealand International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(2), 277-287 doi:10.1007/s10447-005-3186-2
Borgonovi, F and J Pál (2016), “A framework for the analysis of student well-being in the PISA 2015 study”, OECD Education Working Papers, No 140, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlpszwghvvb-en
Borland, J H (1989) Planning and implementing programs for the gifted New York, NY: Teachers College Press
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A (2013) The missing piece: A national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and
57 transform schools Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises and Hart Research Associates for CASEL
Cacioppo, J T., & Cacioppo, S (2014) Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation: Social relationships and health Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 58-72 doi:10.1111/spc3.12087
Callahan, C M., Tomlinson, C A., Moon, T R., Tomchin, E M., & Plucker, J A
(1995) Project START: Using a multiple intelligences model in identifying and promoting talent in high-risk students (RM 95136) Charlottesville: University of
Virginia, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
Carpintero, E., Cabezas, D., & Sánchez, L (2009) Multiple intelligences and high ability: An enrichment proposal based on Howards’ Gardner model Faisca, 14, 4–13
Chaffey, G W (2004) Low self-efficacy: An important talent mask for ‘at risk’ gifted children? QAGTC, 24(2), 9-14
Chau, I (2009) Emotional management of gifted children Nurturing the Gifted
Retrieved from http://www.hkage.org.hk/file/parent_article/381/PAN017_EmotionalManage mentofGiftedChildren_en.pdf
Clark, B (2008) Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (7th ed.) Columbus, OH: Pearson
Cloverdale, G E., & Long, A F (2015) Emotional wellbeing and mental health: An exploration into health promotion in young people and families Perspectives in Public Health, 135(1), 27
Cohen, L., Manion, L and Morrison, K (2000) Research Methods in Education 5th
Edition, Routledge Falmer, London http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2011) Research methods in education (7th ed.) New York, NY: Routledge
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G A (2003) Handbook of gifted education Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Coleman, L J., & Cross, T.L (2014) Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 5-17 doi:10.1177/0162353214521486
Condon, B B (2008) Feeling misunderstood: A concept analysis Nursing Forum,
Corso, R M (2007) Practices for enhancing children's social-emotional development and preventing challenging behavior Gifted Child Today, 30(3), 51-56
Creswell, J W., & Plano Clark, V L (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Cross, J R., & Cross, T L (2015) Clinical and mental health issues in counseling the gifted individual Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 163- 172 doi: 10.1002/j 1556-6676.2015.00192.x
Cross, T.L (2011) Social-emotional needs: The necessity of psychological services for students with gifts and talents Gifted Child Today 34(4), 64-65 doi:10.1177/1076217511418068
Dabrowski, K & Piechowski, M.M (1977) Theory of levels of emotional development (Vols.1 & 2) Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science
Dang, H.-A (2011) Abird’s-eye view of the private tutoring phenomenon in Vietnam IIAS Newsleer, 56, 26–27
Davis, G A., & Rimm, S B (2004) Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson/A and B
Delisle, J R., & Galbraith, J (2002) When gifted kids don't have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirits Publishing
Denzin, N K., & Lincoln, Y S (1994) Handbook of qualitative research Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE