Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teachers’ self-perception of their competence impacts their attitudes toward teaching, which in turn, influences both their practice and student outcomes. The goal of the current study is to explore South Korean preservice primary school teachers’ self-perception of being gifted and the relationship between their self-perception and self-efficacy in attitudes toward gifted education. This mixed-methods study includes a survey of 481 fourth-year South Korean preservice primary school teachers and follow-up focus group interviews with 13 of the survey participants. The survey results indicate that South Korean preservice teachers tend to not consider themselves as gifted. Also, the mean score of self-perception as gifted for the male preservice teachers was significantly higher than that of the female preservice teachers. Their self-perception as gifted was positively related to their self-efficacy in teaching gifted students and their tendency of seeing gifted education as elitist but negatively related to their support of gifted education.

Keywords

gifted education preservice teachers teacher self-efficacy gifted teachers

Teachers’ self-awareness and self-efficacy in teaching are important concepts because they can influence their attitudes toward teaching and students (Yeung et al., 2014; Zee & Koomen, 2016). Zee and Koomen (2016) found a positive link between teacher self-efficacy in teaching and their teaching strategies, attitudes toward students, and students’ academic performance (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Teachers’ classroom attitudes and resulting pedagogy play a key role, especially for gifted students, as many gifted students struggle with academic motivation (Siegle et al., 2014) and require challenging learning opportunities in their areas of giftedness (Miedijensky, 2018). Self-efficacious teachers are effective teachers who can support gifted students to build their own self-efficacy by providing them with challenging tasks (Siegle et al., 2014).

Several studies have sought to measure preservice teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and their education (McCuller, 2011; Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Troxclair, 2013), reporting that the preservice teachers tended to have misconceptions about gifted students and lacked understanding of gifted students’ specific needs. Most researchers attributed the results to egalitarian beliefs or a lack of confidence in teaching gifted students due to the scarcity of undergraduate course offerings in gifted education.

There is little available in the literature that reports on the attitudes and perceived self-efficacy of teachers of gifted students who are gifted themselves. This would be an important population to study, as it would be logical that these teachers would potentially have a greater understanding of the needs of gifted students. Although there has been some research conducted on South Korean in-service teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students and their confidence in teaching gifted students (S.-Y. Lee et al., 2004; K. Lee, 2014), none of the studies have focused on South Korean preservice primary teachers’ perceptions of themselves as gifted and how that is related to their attitudes and self-efficacy.

This study explored South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted and the relationship between their self-efficacy in teaching and attitudes toward gifted students. Earlier studies demonstrated the positive influences of teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and teachers’ attitudes toward students on students’ academic outcomes (Zee & Koomen, 2016); therefore, the next natural step is to explore the link between teachers’ self-perception, self-efficacy, and attitudes.

Theoretical Framework

This study was underpinned by self-perception theory, which is based on the argument that individuals judge their own actions in the same way they observe others’ actions and judge them (Bem, 1972). Individuals interpret their beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes by observing their own behavior and exploring the potential causes that have affected their behavior (Bem, 1972). Mohebi and Bailey (2020) expanded upon this and concluded that (a) one’s self-perception and behavior influence each other and (b) one’s self-perception can affect others’ self-perception and their behavior. Bem (1972) hypothesized that, as an external observer, a person observes and interprets others’ behavior. Mohebi and Bailey (2020) believed that the interpretation of others’ behavior could influence one’s own perception, and in turn, affect one’s behavior. According to this logic, teachers’ self-perception can affect their own behavior, as well as their students’ self-perception and behavior.

Preservice Teachers’ Self-Perception, Self-Efficacy, and Attitudes

Teachers’ self-awareness and self-belief in teaching can influence their classroom pedagogy (Yeung et al., 2014). Yeung et al. (2014) explored the effect of teacher self-concept on teaching approaches and found teacher self-concept to be a significant predictor of teaching approaches. The researchers concluded that teachers’ perceptions not only have an influence on their thinking process in making teaching plans or interacting with students, but also affect their teaching behavior.

Mohebi and Bailey (2020) argued that self-perception is one of the sources of self-efficacy. Using Bem’s (1967) self-perception theory, the researchers explained that preservice teachers use reflective thinking skills to assess their own competence in teaching as they lack actual teaching experiences (Mohebi & Bailey, 2020). Bandura (1997), known as the pioneer of the self-efficacy concept, and Mohebi and Bailey (2020) stressed the importance of teachers’ self-belief in teaching and self-perception in their early stages of teaching because their views and competence in teaching are malleable, as they face many challenging tasks throughout their early field experiences.

In turn, teachers’ early self-efficacy affects their attitudes toward teaching and students. Senler (2016) examined preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward teaching science and found that the two to be positively related. Senler suggested that preservice teachers who believe that their efforts influence student performance tended to feel more positively about their teaching.

Chichekian and Shore (2016) conducted a review of literature focused on the relationship between preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and their use of inquiry-based instruction. They found a high level of self-efficacy in preservice teachers who preferred inquiry-based teaching was associated with their knowledge of teaching strategies, understanding of lesson contents, autonomy, and enthusiasm toward teaching. Inquiry-based teaching stimulates students’ creative thinking and develops their problem solving strategies, initiative, motivation, and confidence, engendering student learning (Shore et al., 2009).

In conclusion, teachers’ self-perception in their early stages of teaching is crucial, as it changes by its surroundings such as practicum experience or professional teacher training. Moreover, literature has shown that there is a positive relationship between teachers’ self-perception and their self-efficacy and their attitudes toward teaching and students (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Thus, it is worthwhile to explore if there is also a positive relationship among preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted, their self-efficacy in teaching gifted students, and their attitudes toward gifted education and gifted students.

Effect of Culture on Self-Perception

Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory was founded on the premise that a person’s self-perception is affected by the surroundings of their experiences. Therefore, one’s self-perception would differ depending on the culture they are from. The psychological experiments by Kim et al. (2014) support the premise of Bem’s theory. The researchers hypothesized that there would be a cultural difference in self-perception between Asians and Caucasians. They recruited 44 Asians and 48 Caucasian American students and randomly divided each group in half. The researchers showed two pictures of cartoon faces with slightly sad facial expressions to half of the participants and asked them to relate their personal experiences with their parents to the pictures for 5 minutes. All participants were asked to check off positive attributes they believed they possessed and their parents would believe they possessed. As a result, the average number of positive attributes checked off by Asians without parent priming was significantly higher than the Asian group with priming, whereas there was no significant difference in the average between the Caucasian groups. The results suggest that there is an influence of culture on one’s self-perception.

The education system in South Korea is well known for its highly competitive atmosphere where expectations from parents on the achievements their children are considerable, which often significantly affect the children’s schooling, career paths, and mental health (Kim & Bang, 2017). Moreover, accessing gifted education programs is so competitive in South Korea that many students get extra private tuition to be awarded a place in a program for gifted children (Jeon, 2010). This cultural effect in education could have an influence on not only South Korean preservice teachers’ overall perception of gifted education but also their self-perception as being gifted themselves.

Definition of Giftedness in South Korea

South Korean teachers’ perceptions of giftedness could be related to the definition of gifted students in South Korean law and the low acceptance rate into gifted education programs in South Korea. Until 2022, the percentage of students who have been accepted into gifted education programs out of the whole student population had never been more 2% since gifted education started in 2003 (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2022). In South Korea, gifted students are defined by law as, “those whose gifts/talents are exceptional and who need special education to develop their innate potential” (Promotion of Education for the Gifted and Talented Act of 2000). As it is not clear how exceptional the students need to be to be considered as gifted, it is likely that people, including teachers, parents, and students, assume those who are in gifted programs are gifted.

Unlike the vague definition of gifted students in South Korea, the definition in Australia and the United States is more specific. Most of states and territories in Australia adopted the definition of giftedness presented in Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT; Gagné, 2004; Slater, 2018). Gagné (2004) defined giftedness as:

the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities (called outstanding aptitudes or gifts), in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers. (p. 120)

According to the definition, the top 10% of students who are exceptional in one or more domains could be considered as gifted in Australia, whereas it is possible that those students would not be seen as gifted in South Korea if they were not in gifted programs.

Even though gifted education policies vary by state, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2019) in the United States defines gifted individuals as “those who perform—or have the capacity to perform—at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains” (p. 1). NAGC added that “gifted students can have learning and process disorders and require specialized intervention and accommodation,” stressing that gifted students can have both gifts and difficulties at the same time.

Research Questions

The goal of this study was to explore South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted and the relationship between their self-efficacy in teaching and attitudes toward gifted students. Also, the study searched for possible factors that could have influenced the study’s participants’ self-perception of being gifted by conducting follow-up interviews. To achieve these goals, the study was guided by the following research questions:

• RQ1 To what extent do South Korean preservice teachers perceive themselves as gifted?

• RQ2 What factors potentially affect South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception as being gifted themselves?

• RQ3 Is there a relationship between South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted and their feelings of self-efficacy in teaching gifted students?

• RQ4 Is there a relationship between self-perception of being gifted and their attitudes toward gifted education?

Methods

The study reported here was a mixed-methods study that the first author conducted as part of her PhD thesis.

Mixed-Methods Design

The study used an exploratory sequential design, which is one of three mixed-methods designs suggested by Creswell (2017): convergent (conducting both quantitative and qualitative research simultaneously), explanatory sequential (with an emphasis on quantitative research followed by qualitative research), and exploratory sequential (emphasis on qualitative research followed by quantitative research). In explanatory sequential designs, the quantitative component of the study is conducted first and is then followed by qualitative study. The qualitative data is used to interpret and explain the quantitative results (Creswell, 2017). The design is especially helpful when unexpected results are found in the quantitative study (Creswell, 2014).

Creswell (2017) recommended four steps in the explanatory sequential design. In Step 1, the researcher designs and conducts quantitative research, which includes obtaining ethics approval for the study. The data is then analyzed using statistical methods. In Step 2, the researcher designs a follow-up qualitative research study based on the results from the quantitative study. In Step 3, the researcher formulates qualitative research questions, obtains approval for the follow-up study, conducts the study, and analyzes the qualitative data. Last, the researcher summarizes and interprets results from both studies and connects the findings. These steps were followed throughout this study; a description follows.

During the first phase of the research study, survey questionnaires were used to collect data. After receiving ethics approval for the study from the institution the researcher was affiliated with and the Korea National Institution for Bioethics Policy, 13 universities that offered a Primary Education bachelor’s degree program in South Korea were invited to take a survey. In total, 481 useable questionnaires were collected in May to June 2018 from fourth-year South Korean primary education major students from University A, B, C, D, and E who provided institutional consent for the survey.

The gender ratio of the 481 participants was 70% female, 27% male, and 3% unknown. The average age of participants in this study was 22.8 years, with 80.9% aged 21–23 years. The age range of the study sample was from 19 to 40 years. The average age of males was approximately one year higher than that of the female participants. See Table 1 for survey participant demographics.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of Survey Participants (N = 481).

	Female		Male		Unknown		Total
Age	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
Under 20	1	0.2	0	0	0	0	1	0.2
21–23	289	60.1	90	18.7	10	2.1	389	80.9
24–26	26	5.4	25	5.2	1	0.2	52	10.8
27–29	10	2.1	13	2.7	1	0.2	24	5.0
Over 30	10	2.1	4	0.8	1	0.2	15	3.1
Total (% of total sample)	336	69.9	132	27.4	13	2.7	481	100
Average age	22.5		23.4		23.5		22.8

During the second phase of the study, the researcher collected qualitative data from 13 fourth-year primary education preservice teachers who had participated in the survey and provided their consent to attend follow-up focus groups in January 2019. The focus groups were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the findings from the survey. The researcher conducted three focus groups, with four to five participants in each group. All interviewees were in their final year of university and had completed eight or nine weeks of practicum. See Table 2 for focus group interview participant demographics and participant codes.

Table 2.

Focus Group Interview Information of Participants (N = 13).

	Age	Experience of Working at a Gifted Education Center	Experience of Getting a Formal Gifted Education Program	Experience of Taking a Gifted Education Course	Having a Family Member Who was Identified as Gifted
A1 (F)	23	○			○
A2 (F)	23	○
A3 (F)	22	○	○
A4 (M)	22	○	○
C1 (F)	22
C2 (M)	23
C3 (F)	22			○	○
C4 (F)	22
D1 (M)	23
D2 (M)	28
D3 (M)	27
D4 (F)	23		○
D5 (F)	22
Total = 13 (F: 8, M:5)	23.2 (average)	4	3	1	2

Note. F = female, M = male, University D did not offer a gifted education course at all.

Survey Research Methods

Two measurement instruments were used to collect the data, 12 items from the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and 20 items from the revised Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale (McCoach & Siegle, 2007). The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) uses a nine-point, Likert-type scale and the item wording was adjusted to focus on teaching gifted students. The revised Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale (McCoach & Siegle, 2007) uses a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 equates to strongly disagree and 7 to strongly agree. The scale includes 4 subscales: Support (5 items), Elitism (6 items), Acceleration (4 items), and Self-Perceptions as Gifted (5 items).

The Support subscale was used to measure the participant’s understanding of the needs of gifted students and their support for gifted education. High scores on the scale implied positive attitudes toward gifted students. Elitism items were used to measure the participant’s objections based on perceptions on elitism and priorities that gifted students might have in schools or society. Acceleration items were used to measure the participant’s views on academic acceleration of gifted students. The Self-Perceptions as Gifted scale measured the participant’s perception of their own giftedness. High scores on the subscale implied the participant considered themself as gifted.

Data Coding

Each survey questionnaire that was collected was given a unique number to make it easier for retrieval and cross-checking for errors. The survey questionnaires from each university were assigned an initial code number that equated to that specific university. A code book was created for each item; for example, gender was coded as 1 for female, 2 for male, and 3 for not indicated.

Data Screening

The data from the paper copies were manually entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then transferred to SPSS for analysis. The data entry was checked for accuracy by an independent checker for one in three survey questionnaires to establish interrater reliability. The cross-checker double-checked the data entry with the responses from the returned questionnaire. Errors found by the checker were checked by the researcher after examining the original response on the questionnaire. Both the researcher and the cross-checker found three blanks in total from the Excel dataset. Thus, the researcher compared the specific rows that the blanks belonged to and the questionnaires that contained the data of the rows to input the correct information. The corrected data were double-checked by the cross-checker.

Survey Data Analysis

SPSS version 24 was used for all quantitative data analyses in this study. As this study focuses on South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted, the mean scores and standard deviation of the five items out of the self-perception subscale among the four subscales of the Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale were calculated. To assess the measurement instruments’ reliability, internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Heale & Twycross, 2015; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Cronbach’s alpha value for the 12 items of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was .94. The value of the four subscales of the revised Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale (McCoach & Siegle, 2007) was .89, .75, .82, and .68 for the Self-Perceptions as Gifted, Support, Elitism, and Acceleration subscales respectively, which is reliable considering that the acceptable range of Cronbach’s alpha is from .70 to .95 (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

An independent samples t-test was conducted to identify whether there was a difference in Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale scores by gender. A linear regression was run to predict whether the South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted could be predicted by age. To check the effect of gifted education coursework on their self-perception of being gifted, the researcher divided the participants into two groups: those who had taken a gifted education course and those who had not. An independent two-sample t-test was used to compare the mean difference between the two groups in their self-perception as gifted. The independent samples t-test is a test that examines whether two averages of two independent samples vary significantly (Field, 2018).

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated between the variables—self-perception and self-efficacy—and the other three subscales of Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale. The purpose of the correlation analysis is to examine relationship among the variables (Field, 2018). It was of interest to determine if a statistically significant relationship existed among the two variables.

Qualitative Research Methods

Semistructured Interview

The qualitative portion of the study consisted of semistructured interviews. In qualitative interviewing, there is a greater focus on the participants’ own perspectives, whereas interviewing in quantitative research puts more emphasis on the researcher’s point of views (Bryman, 2012). Qualitative interviewing is more flexible and less structured than quantitative interviewing (Bryman, 2012). There are two main types of qualitative interview methods: unstructured and semistructured interviews (Bryman, 2012). We used a semistructured interview, as it has a set of predetermined questions on specific subject but still allows interviewees flexibility in their responses (Longhurst, 2016).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Deductive content analysis was adopted for qualitative analysis. The researcher ensured the trustworthiness of the data interpretations via member-checking and various triangulation methods. Member-checking is well known as one of the techniques to enhance the credibility of qualitative data or results (Birt et al., 2016). The checking process requires the participant to review the transcription of their interview or analyzed results (Birt et al., 2016). Anonymized transcriptions of the focus group interviews were sent to all of the interview participants who provided their consent to the research and their e-mail address. The participants were asked to review the transcription and inform the researcher if there were any inaccuracies, omissions, or commissions in the transcript. Four out of 13 focus group interviewees confirmed that the contents of the transcription were identical with what they had said during the interview. None of the participants raised any queries about the transcription.

Translation was reviewed by the first author and another Korean-English speaking research student. The research student also studied at the same English-medium higher education institution for over a year. The first author sent the merged coding file to the Korean-English speaking research student via e-mail, and the research student confirmed that the merged coding had not omitted any of the answers of the interview participants and that it was correctly translated into English.

The translated data was classified and coded for analysis. The translated coding was reviewed by the first author’s supervisors who are native-English speakers. They reviewed the structure of the coding and whether a theme appropriately included the categories and subcategories. Also, as English speakers, they provided suggestions regarding translations. The researcher and two supervisors had a meeting to discuss the coding methods and any differences. The collaborative process was used to prevent bias in the data coding (Connelly, 2016).

Deductive Content Analysis

Qualitative content analysis is a method that classifies the data systematically via coding and identifies themes or patterns (Moretti et al., 2011). Opposed to inductive content analysis, where the categories come directly from the raw data (Moretti et al., 2011), deductive content analysis uses preconceived categories and researchers analyze the data according to previously formulated categories (Kyngäs & Kaakinen, 2019). The latter method is especially useful when testing existing theories or hypotheses (Moretti et al., 2011).

In the deductive content analysis coding, a researcher develops structured analysis matrices according to relevant research or a theory (Kyngäs & Kaakinen, 2019). In the initial stage of coding process, the researcher generated structured matrices with three-phased categories: theme, category, and subcategory. The themes were extracted from interview questions and the categories were derived from the results of quantitative survey and relevant research results (see Table 3). Other categories and subcategories were added if the answers of the participants did not fit any predetermined categories or the answers were from follow-up questions. The coding process was guided by four categories from the subscales of the Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale: Self-Perceptions as Gifted, Support, Elitism, and Acceleration. For the purposes of this paper, only the Teachers’ Self-Perceptions as Gifted category theme is reported here.

Table 3.

Deductive Content Analysis Coding Example (Focus Group Interview).

Theme	Category	Subcategory
Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education	• Effect of teachers’ self-perception of their giftedness	• Helpful• They may not understand nongifted students
Teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education	(Follow-up)Opinions about the unexpected survey results in May–June 2018Note:1. Correlation between Elitism and Self-perception; the more they think they’re gifted, the more they tend to consider gifted education as elitism.2. Negative correlation between Support and Self-perception	• Could be derived from the participants’ (who answered they’re gifted) negative personal experience in regard to (gifted) education in South Korea

Results

South Korean Preservice Teachers’ Self-Perception of Being Gifted Themselves

For the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale, the mean subscale score of 2.93 (SD = 1.27) equates to South Korean preservice primary teachers somewhat disagreeing with perceiving themselves as gifted (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Self-Perceptions as Gifted Subscale.

Subscale	Items	Total Sample (N = 481) 7-Point Likert Scale
Subscale	Items	Item Mean	Item SD	Subscale Mean (SD)
Self-perception	16. I was or could have been in a gifted program in school	3.91	1.81	2.93 (1.27)
	17. Most of my family and friends consider me gifted	2.91	1.46
	18. I am gifted	2.63	1.52
	19. Most of my family and friends are gifted	2.60	1.39
	20. People consider me gifted	2.59	1.39

An independent samples t-test was conducted to identify if there was a difference in Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale scores by gender. The 13 gender-unknown survey responses were removed from the analysis. From the t-test, there was a statistically significant difference between female (n = 336) and male (n = 132) for the subscale. The mean score of the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale for the male preservice teachers (M = 3.38, SE = 1.27) was significantly higher than that of female preservice teachers (M = 2.75, SE = 1.22). The difference of .63, BCa 95% CI [.37, .88] was statistically significant t (466) = 4.97, p = .000; however, the effect size was small, d = .23.

A linear regression was run to predict whether the South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted could be predicted by age. The Durbin-Watson test result for the Age-Self-Perception model was acceptable with values of 1.91. However, no significant regression equations were found for the model: F (1, 479) = .433, p = .51, with an R² of .001 for the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale.

The mean Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale score for those who had taken a gifted education course (M = 2.90, SE = 1.3) was slightly lower than those who had not taken a gifted education course (M = 2.95, SE = 1.24). The small difference, −.05, BCa 95% CI [−.27, .21], was not significant t (479) = −.41, p = .68.

Relationship Between Self-Perception of Being Gifted and Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Toward Gifted Education

South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of their giftedness was significantly and positively related to their sense of efficacy in teaching gifted students (r = .254, p = .000). See Table 5 for the correlations between self-perception and self-efficacy and the other three subscales of Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education Scale.

Table 5.

Correlations Between Self-Perceptions as Gifted and Teacher Self-Efficacy, Support, Elitism, and Acceleration.

	Self-Efficacy	Support	Elitism (Negatively Framed)	Acceleration (Negatively Framed)
Self-perception	.254***	−.091*	.170***	.008

*p < .05, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

The Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale was negatively related to the Support subscale (r = −.091, p = .047). It is noteworthy that the preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted was positively related to their tendency of seeing gifted education as elitist (r = .170, p = .000). The preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted did not show a positive relationship between their own beliefs of being gifted or gifted education. Last, there was no significant relationship between Self-Perceptions as Gifted and Acceleration (r = .008, p = .853).

South Korean Preservice Teachers Opinions About Self-Perceptions as Gifted

Most of the 481 survey participants did not view themselves as gifted, with an average score of 2.93 out of 7.00 in the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale. Also, a negative correlation between the Self-Perceptions as Gifted and Support subscales was found, and the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale was positively correlated to the Elitism subscale. From the earlier analysis of the preservice teachers’ survey data, the participants’ self-perception of themselves as gifted was not proportional to their support of gifted students and their education. Unlike the survey results, many focus group interviewees believed that teachers’ self-perception of being gifted would be helpful for a teacher to understand gifted students.

Eleven out of 13 focus group interviewees answered the question about teachers’ self-perception of being gifted, and 10 of 11 interviewees thought that their self-perception of being gifted would help them understand gifted students’ difficulties or differences, allowing them to support gifted students better. For example:

I think gifted students think differently and when they say something in the classroom and the other guys say, “Why do you think that way?”, the teacher can help the gifted kid by saying “Oh, you thought that way. I thought that way too.” Then the gifted student would think “Oh, I’m special, I’m not weird.” (C4)

However, three of the 11 participants were concerned that teachers who perceive themselves as gifted might understand gifted students better but might not understand nongifted students. After answering that teachers’ self-perception would be helpful for them to understand gifted students better, C1 added “but they wouldn’t understand nongifted students.” C2 shared his personal experience with a student who he tutored: “Honestly, even when I do tutoring, I don’t understand those who struggle solving problems.”

Meanwhile, the five focus group interviewees from D university were asked to share their opinions about the unexpected negative correlations between the Self-Perceptions as Gifted and Support subscale scores in the survey in 2018. D5 shared her opinion based on the Korean cultural aspect and D1 and D4 agreed with her opinion:

I think it could be derived from the participants’ negative personal experiences. In Korea, education is always related to university entrance and if they had perceived themselves as gifted and not have had the education to go to a well-known university, they might have been hurt from the pressure on them so that could’ve affected them negatively in regard to the needs of gifted education. They could’ve been gifted but they might not have gotten the gifted education they wanted (and it could’ve affected them negatively). (D5)

In brief, most of the focus group interviewees regarded teachers’ self-perception as being gifted positively in regard to understanding and supporting gifted students better. However, some of the interviewees were worried that those teachers would not understand nongifted students. Also, some of them acknowledged that teachers’ negative personal experiences as a gifted student in South Korea who experienced pressure could have negatively affected their attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education.

Discussion

Teachers’ Self-Perception of Being Gifted

To measure teachers’ self-perception of being gifted, McCoach and Siegle (2007) added a five-item, Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale to the original Opinions About Gifted Students and Their Education scale developed by Gagné and Nadeau (1991). For the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale in this study, the mean subscale score of 2.93 out of 7.00 equates to South Korean preservice primary teachers somewhat disagreeing with perceiving themselves as gifted. As only a few studies have used and reported the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale, with only one study conducted with preservice teachers, comparisons of this subscale are limited to the studies of Jung (2014) and McCoach and Siegle (2007).

Jung’s (2014) study of 241 preservice teachers in their final year at a university in Australia used McCoach and Siegle’s (2007) Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale, but the researcher added one more item to the subscale: “I would very much like to be considered a gifted person.” When the sixth item is removed from the subscale, the adjusted mean subscale score of the original five items from the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale was 3.39 out of 7.00. This mean subscale score is higher than the result from this study at 2.93, where a score of 3.00 equates to somewhat disagree, 4.00 to neutral, and 7.00 to strongly agree.

In a study where the sample was drawn from in-service teachers (McCoach & Siegle, 2007), the mean score was higher than those of studies with preservice teachers (Jung, 2014), including this study. In McCoach and Siegle (2007), the mean subscale score of the 262 American in-service teachers was 4.12 out of 7.00. A score of 4.00 equates to neutral.

A potential reason why the mean scores of the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale of preservice teachers were a little lower than those of in-service teachers could be related to their perception of giftedness. This assertion is supported by the research conducted by Siegle et al. (2010) and Matheis et al. (2020). Siegle et al. (2010) created 11 virtual student profiles and asked 290 preservice teachers and 95 in-service teachers in New England, United States, to suggest how strongly they would recommend the students in the profiles for gifted education programs. The selection criteria of the programs were deliberately withheld from the participants. Siegle et al. (2010) found that the in-service teachers were more likely to regard the students in the profiles as gifted than the preservice teachers were. This higher standard for identification for gifted services was also shown in the study by Matheis et al. with 315 Australian preservice teachers. Participants tended to relate giftedness to higher intellectual ability than average students.

It would appear that when preservice teachers are asked to apply their own definition of giftedness when asked to answer whether they considered themselves as gifted, they tend to respond on the negative side of neutral. Their lack of teaching experience and view of gifted students as being only those with high intellectual abilities could have contributed to the preservice teachers not considering themselves as gifted, lowering the mean scores of the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale. Yet, the preservice teachers in this study had the lowest self-perception scores of all the comparative studies. The reason for the lowest mean score of the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale of South Korean preservice teachers could be related to the preservice teachers’ narrowed perception of giftedness and gifted students judging from the focus group interview results of this study.

Currently, none of the universities in South Korea that offer a bachelor’s degree in primary education provide a compulsory course in gifted education. A few offer an elective course in gifted education, and other courses offer content embedded within a special education course (Choe, 2016). As the majority of the South Korean preservice teachers in general had not taken a gifted education course, they might have not had the chance to discuss the definition of giftedness during their university program. The lack of discussion could have led to them portraying gifted students as only those who are highly exceptional or in gifted education programs and to not understanding that they may well be gifted by Western definitions.

One interviewee said she had been in a gifted education program in middle school, but she marked disagree on the four out of five items about Self-Perceptions as Gifted: (a) Most of my family members consider me gifted, (b) I am gifted, (c) Most of my family and friends are gifted, and (d) People consider me gifted. Two other preservice teachers considered only those who are extremely exceptional as gifted when asked for their definition of gifted students. Thus, the preservice teachers who participated in the survey and focus group interviews in this study might have not considered themselves as gifted, regardless of their giftedness, if they believed a gifted person had to be profoundly gifted.

Last, a potential reason for the lowest self-perception scores of the South Korean preservice teachers could be related to the culture. Kim and his colleagues have found that Asians become more humble than Western people when it comes to making self-assessments (Kim & Chiu, 2011; Kim et al., 2010). Kim and Chiu (2011) asked 95 university students in the Midwestern United States to complete 10 verbal problems randomly selected from the SAT and estimate how well they did compared to the other students in the same school on a percentile scale from 0 to 100. The hundred percentile equates to “I’m on the very top.” The researchers repeated the same study with 2780 high school students in Hong Kong to compare the results. The researchers found that the average response of American students was 63.32%, whereas that of Hong Kong students was 48.76%. In another cross-cultural study with a total of 283 teachers from South Korea, Israel, and the United States, the mean score of South Korean teachers’ self-confidence in teaching mathematically gifted students was the lowest among the three teacher groups. Min et al. (2016) explained these phenomena by calling it “modesty bias” or “self-presentation bias,” which implies that people from East Asian cultural backgrounds tend to underestimate their competence as the culture encourages people to avoid drawing attention not to make others feel inferior. As Asian culture puts more emphasis on modesty and interdependence than non-Asian cultures (Xu et al., 2014), the South Korean preservice teacher participants might have felt that they had to be humble when completing the questionnaire because they were aware that the data about themselves would be used publicly even though their identity would remain anonymous.

The lower results of the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale of South Korean preservice teachers could be a matter of how gifted students are viewed or a cultural effect, rather than if the preservice teachers are gifted. Also, given Asian culture tends to emphasize modesty could have affected the low mean score of the South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted.

Gender Difference in Teachers’ Self-Perception of Being Gifted

There were significant gender differences in the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale in this study. The mean score of the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale for the male preservice teachers (M = 3.38, SE = 1.27) was significantly higher than that of female preservice teachers (M = 2.75, SE = 1.22). This could be related to the relationship between the preservice teachers’ perceived competence and their self-efficacy. Kim and Choi (2013) found a positive relationship between 202 South Korean early childhood preservice teachers’ perceived competence and their academic self-efficacy.

Around three quarters of gifted programs in South Korea focused on math and science in 2022 (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2022), so it is likely that most of the South Korean preservice teachers might have limited their perception of gifted students as those who possess gifts and talents specifically in math or science. If so, they could have been relating their self-perception of being gifted to their self-efficacy in math or science, as posited by Kim and Choi (2013).

Several studies suggested that males show higher self-efficacy in math and science than females. Huang (2013) published a meta-analysis of 187 studies (N = 68,429) about academic self-efficacy to identify gender differences by subject area. He found that males showed higher self-efficacy in math and computer science than females, whereas females showed higher self-efficacy in language arts. Joo et al. (2011) analyzed the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 results in which 5131 South Korean high school students participated, and male students showed significantly higher science self-efficacy than female students. The higher self-efficacy in math and science of the male survey participants of this study could have positively been related their perceived competence in math and science, which also could have been related to their self-perception of being gifted.

Finally, the gender difference in self-perception of South Korean preservice teachers could be related to a combination of modesty bias by East Asian culture and gender bias. In their experimental study, Yamagishi et al. (2012) asked their Japanese and American participants to compete the embedded figure test adopted from Kuhnen et al. (2001) and rate their performance compared to the performance of other participants in their age group. The average of American male participants was the highest, followed by Japanese male, American female, and Japanese female participants. A similar result was found in a cross-cultural study conducted with 102 British and 111 Chinese university students (Furnham et al., 2012). The participants were asked to self-assess their intelligence, and the researchers found that not only the mean score of British participants was higher than the mean score of Chinese participants, but also male students showed higher self-assessed intelligence score overall than female students. Furnham et al. (2012) argued that the results supported a cultural modesty bias and gender bias in self-assessment of intelligence.

In summary, the gender difference in South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception mean score could have been derived from how giftedness is viewed in South Korea where higher emphasis is placed on mathematics and science within gifted education, given the literature has shown that male students’ self-efficacy in math and science is higher than female students. If the South Korean preservice teacher survey participants regarded gifted people as those who have gifts solely in math or science, they might have related their efficacy in the subjects to their self-perception of being gifted. In addition, it is possible that the vast gender difference could be related to East Asian culture and gender bias within education.

Relationship Between Sense of Efficacy and Self-Perception

In this study, South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of their giftedness was positively related to their sense of efficacy in teaching gifted students (r = .25, p = .00). Even though there was a positive correlation between teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching gifted students and their self-perception of being gifted in this study, this is the only study that has looked at relationship of the two variables. However, there are similar studies about the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and their self-concept or self-awareness. Zhu et al. (2018) conducted a study with 1892 Chinese teachers to explore if there was a relationship between the Chinese teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching and self-concept. The researchers explained that both terms, teacher self-efficacy and teacher self-concept, are about teachers’ self-perceptions about their competence in teaching. However, the researchers differentiated the terms by referring to Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy concept; teacher self-efficacy is future-oriented. From the results of their study, there was a statistically positive correlation between the Chinese teachers’ self-efficacy and their self-concept.

Richardson and Shupe (2003) argued that teachers’ self-awareness is important, especially when teaching students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Teacher self-awareness is not only helpful in understanding students’ challenges and teaching students effectively but also in managing teachers’ stress from dealing with such challenges. Teacher self-awareness refers to realizing and understanding one’s own feelings and behaviors, which better helps them to understand students (Richardson & Shupe, 2003). Self-awareness in teaching includes being aware of what teaching strategies one uses and of the effectiveness of the strategies (Richardson & Shupe, 2003). Some gifted students struggle with emotional and behavioral difficulties due to their sensitiveness, perfectionism, or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Coleman et al., 2015; Mullet & Rinn, 2015). Thus, teachers’ self-awareness of being gifted or of strategies in teaching gifted students could be useful for teachers to understand the challenging characteristics of gifted students and teach them effectively.

Negative Correlation With Support of Gifted Education and Positive Correlation With Elitism

In this study, the Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale was negatively related to the Support subscale (r = −.091, p = .047) and positively related to their tendency of seeing gifted education as elitism (r = .170, p = .000). The result is opposite to the interviewees’ opinions, many of whom noted that teachers’ self-perception of being gifted would better help them understand gifted students’ difficulties or differences, leading to stronger support of gifted students. A possible reason for the contradictory results could be linked to the answer of the interview participant from University D: Teachers’ negative personal experiences as a gifted student in South Korea could have negatively affected their attitudes toward gifted education. According to Petty and Krosnick (2014), who are well known for their studies on attitude formation and change, a person’s initial attitudes are determined by a number of past experiences and strongly influence perception.

Possible negative experiences of gifted education in South Korea include not getting formal gifted education due to inequitable opportunities or the idea that gifted education is often used as a means for university entrance or a higher level of education. In a study with South Korean 58 primary school students who were in a gifted education program, only 18 (31%) of them were selected to a gifted program in the following year, and 40 (69%) students failed to be selected (Hyeon, 2011). As mentioned earlier, the percentage of students who have been accepted into gifted education programs out of the whole student population in South Korea had never been more than 2% until 2022 (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2022), which makes it difficult for even those who once may have been placed in a gifted education program to be selected again.

In studies about South Korean high school students who dropped out of a gifted education program (Kim, 2013), both the dropout students and a teacher interviewee in a gifted education program agreed that many students tend to apply for a gifted education program hoping it will give them better opportunities for university entrance. One of the participants dropped out of a gifted education program because of her negative experience at a gifted education center attached to a university in South Korea. She found the program was too difficult and the assignments were demanding. The survey participants of this study who perceived themselves as gifted might have diverse experiences regarding their giftedness, and their negative experiences could have influenced their attitudes toward gifted education.

Conclusion

The major implication of the study is that cultural influences have an impact on teachers’ perceptions. The Self-Perceptions as Gifted subscale mean score of 481 South Korean preservice teachers of this study was quite lower than the other studies’ results that measured teachers’ self-perception as gifted using the same instrument that this study used. The mean score of the South Korean male preservice teachers was significantly higher than that of the female preservice teachers. Relevant literature indicates that Asian culture places higher emphasis on humility than non-Asian cultures, and when it comes to assessing self-competence, women are more likely to be more humble than men. It is assumed that the participants of this study also could have been influenced by the Asian culture or stereotyped gender role; however, the influence of the modesty-stressing culture on the 481 South Korean preservice teachers was not directly mentioned or testified by the study participants. Follow-up studies with South Korean preservice teachers about the influence of the modesty-stressing culture on their self-perception are recommended.

In addition, there was a positive correlation between self-efficacy in teaching gifted students and self-perception of being gifted in this study. Considering that earlier studies have found teacher self-efficacy to have a positive influence on their classroom pedagogy and attitudes toward students, the results of this study imply that teachers’ self-perception of being gifted could potentially have a positive influence on their own teaching. Most of the follow-up interviewees also believed that teachers’ self-perception of being gifted would be helpful for them to better understand gifted students.

However, the South Korean preservice teachers’ self-perception of being gifted was negatively related to their support of gifted education and positively related to their tendency of regarding gifted education as elitist, which indicates that those preservice teachers who considered themselves as gifted were more likely to be opposed to gifted education. The results are contradictory; from the correlation between self-perception of being gifted and self-efficacy, a positive influence of self-perception on supporting gifted students was predicted; however, a negative correlation between self-perception and participants’ support of gifted education and a positive correlation between self-perception and their tendency of regarding gifted education as elitist imply a negative influence of self-perception as gifted on participant support of gifted education. Only one interviewee suggested that one’s negative experience regarding gifted education could have a negative influence on their support of gifted education, even though the person still considers themself gifted. As this is only one participant’s opinion, further research on the possible reasons for this study’s results is recommended, perhaps in the form of follow-up interviews with South Korean preservice teachers who consider themselves as gifted but are opposed to gifted education or a replication of this study with preservice teachers from other countries.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Correction (December 2023):

The article has been updated to correct the country name in the affiliation and corresponding author details;citation of reference “H.-J. Lee et al.,2014” to “K. Lee,2014” in the text;reference “Kim,H. S. et al. (2013)” as “Kim,H. S.,& Choi,J. S. (2013)”,“Kim,S. K. et al. (2017)” as “Kim,J. S.,& Bang,H. Y. (2017)” and “Lee,H.-J. et al. (2014)” as “Lee,K. (2014)” in the reference list.

ORCID iD

Therese M. Cumming

Author Biographies

Heejin Woo,PhD,is a graduate from the School of Education,UNSW Sydney. Her research interests are gifted education,initial teacher education,gifted adults,gifted underachievers,and the impact of culture on education.

Therese M. Cumming,PhD,is a Professor of Special Education and Academic Lead Education at the Disability Innovation Institute at UNSW Sydney. Her research interests are special education,emotional and behavioral disabilities,transitions,Universal Design for Learning,and mobile technology as assistive technology.

References

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.

Bem

D. J.

(1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024835

Bem

D. J.

(1972). Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz

(Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.

Birt

Scott

Cavers

Campbell

Walter

(2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Bryman

(2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Chichekian

Shore

B. M.

(2016). Pre-service and practicing teachers’ self-efficacy for inquiry-based instruction. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1236872

Choe

H. S.

(2016). Critical reflection on teacher training programs in Korean gifted and talented education. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 6(1), 35–43. https://www.proquest.com/openview/cf4d3e1b27d9918a2e57f8d72df4567d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1946344

Coleman

L. J.

Micko

K. J.

Cross

T. L.

(2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322

Connelly

L. M.

(2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing: Official Journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, 25(6), 435–436. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30304614/

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed-methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

12.

Field

(2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.

13.

Furnham

B. L.

Swami

(2012). Cross-cultural differences in self-assessed intelligence: A comparison of British and Chinese undergraduates. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychological Sciences, 55(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2012.21

14.

Gagné

(2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682

15.

Gagné

Nadeau

(1991). Brief presentation of Gagné and Nadeau’s attitude scale “Opinions about the gifted and their education”. Unpublished manuscript. University of Quebec.

16.

Heale

Twycross

(2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129

17.

Huang

(2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y

18.

Hyeon

S. Y.

(2011). 영재교육대상자 선발과정에서의 탈락경험과 수학영재 학생들의 수학적 태도. [Effects of the failure experience in the selection process on gifted students’ mathematical attitude]. [Master’s thesis, Konkuk University].http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T12509592

19.

Jeon

(2010). 사교육 경험이 영재 판별 과정에 미치는 영향에 대한 초등학교 영재학생 및 학부모의 인식. [Perception of gifted children and their parents on extracurricular education experiences and their effects on the identification process]. [Master’s thesis. Konkuk University].http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T11907330

20.

Joo

Y. J.

Jung

Y. L.

Lee

Y. K.

(2011). 고등학생의 학업적 자기효능감, 외적동기, 흥미, 과학 과목성취도의 구조적 관계와 성별에 따른 잠재평균 분석 [The structural relationship and latent means analysis of gender among academic self-efficacy, interest, external motivation and science achievement for high school students]. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 31(6), 876–886. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE09042597

21.

Jung

J. Y.

(2014). Predictors of attitudes to gifted programs/provisions: Evidence from pre-service educators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547636

22.

Kim

H. S.

Choi

J. S.

(2013). 예비유아교사의 자기능력 지각수준이 정신건강과 학업적 자기효능감에 미치는 영향 [The effect of self-perceived competence of pre-service early childhood teachers on their mental health and academic self-efficacy]. Korean Journal of Child Education and Care, 13(2), 67–82. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001780209

23.

Kim

J. S.

Bang

H. Y.

(2017). Education fever: Korean parents’ aspirations for their children’s schooling and future career. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1252419

24.

Kim

K. C.

(2013). 고등학교 영재의 자발적 영재교육 중도포기요인에 대한 사례 연구 [Case study of dropout students from gifted and talented education in high school] [Master’s thesis, Incheon National University]. http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13083400

25.

Kim

Y.-H.

Chiu

C.-Y.

(2011). Emotional costs of inaccurate self-assessments: Both self-effacement and self-enhancement can lead to dejection. Emotion, 11(5), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025478

26.

Kim

Y.-H.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Cho

E. W. M.

Kwak

S. N.

(2014). Aligning inside and outside perspectives of the self: A cross-cultural difference in self-perception. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12042

27.

Kim

Y.-H.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Peng

Cai

Tov

(2010). Explaining east-west differences in the likelihood of making favorable self-evaluations: The role of evaluation apprehension and directness of expression. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109348921

28.

Korean Educational Development Institute . (2022). Gifted education database. [Data file].https://ged.kedi.re.kr/stss/main.do#download

29.

Kuhnen

Hannover

Schubert

(2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context dependent versus context independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.397

30.

Kyngäs

Kaakinen

(2019). Deductive content analysis. In Kyngäs

Kaakinen

Kääriäinen

(Eds), The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 23–30). Springer.

31.

Lee

(2014). 예비교사와 현직교사의 영재교육에 대한 인식 및 영재에 대한 이미지 비교 [A study on comparison with recognition about gifted education and image on the gifted between pre-service teacher and in-service teacher] [Master’s thesis, Ajou University]. http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13549063

32.

Lee

S.-Y.

Cramond

Lee

(2004). Korean teachers’ attitudes toward academic brilliance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800105

33.

Longhurst

. (2016). Semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews. In Clifford

Cope

Gillespie

French

(Eds), Key methods in geography (3rd ed., pp. 143–156). Sage.

34.

Matheis

Keller

Kronborg

Schmitt

Preckel

(2020). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in teachers’ beliefs about students’ characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029

35.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719

36.

McCuller

B. H.

(2011). The measurement of change in pre-service teachers’ attitudes on giftedness and gifted students: A professional development approach (Publication No. ED550321) [Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University]. ERIC.

37.

Miedijensky

(2018). Learning environment for the gifted—what do outstanding teachers of the gifted think? Gifted Education International, 34(3), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754204

38.

Min

Cortina

K. S.

Miller

K. F.

(2016). Modesty bias and the attitude-achievement paradox across nations: A reanalysis of TIMSS. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.09.008

39.

Mohebi

Bailey

(2020). Exploring Bem’s self-perception theory in an educational context. Encyclopaideia–Journal of Phenomenology and Education, 24(58), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/9891

40.

Moretti

van Vliet

Bensing

Deledda

Mazzi

Rimondini

Zimmermann

Fletcher

(2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.005

41.

Mullet

D. R.

Rinn

A. N.

(2015). Giftedness and ADHD: Identification, misdiagnosis, and dual diagnosis. Roeper Review, 37(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077910

42.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2019). A definition of giftedness that guides best practice. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=source%3A%22National+Association+for+Gifted+Children%22&id=ED600145

43.

Petty

R. E.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2014). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Psychology Press.

44.

Plunkett

Kronborg

(2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1–2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587

45.

Promotion of Education for the Gifted and Talented Act of 2000, 15231 S.K.C. § 1-2 . (2000& rev.2017). http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=199748&efYd=20171219#0000

46.

Richardson

B. G.

Shupe

M. J.

(2003). The importance of teacher self-awareness in working with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990303600201

47.

Senler

(2016). Pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy: The role of attitude, anxiety and locus of control. Australian Journal of Education, 60(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116629807

48.

Shore

B. M.

Birlean

Walker

C. L.

Ritchie

K. C.

LaBanca

Aulls

M. W.

(2009). Inquiry literacy: A proposal for a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes, 3(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v3i1.322

49.

Siegle

Moore

Mann

R. L.

Wilson

H. E.

(2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300303

50.

Siegle

Rubenstein

L. D.

Mitchell

M. S.

(2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experiences: The influence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513496

51.

Slater

(2018). The identification of gifted children in Australia: The importance of policy. TalentEd, 30(1), 1–16. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=260103350609800;res=IELHSS

52.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2(4), 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

53.

Troxclair

D. A.

(2013). Pre-service teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review, 35(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.740603

54.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

55.

Farver

J. A. M.

Shin

(2014). Shyness and psychosocial functioning in South Korean children. European Journal of Personality, 28(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1938

56.

Yamagishi

Hashimoto

Cook

K. S.

Kiyonari

Shinada

Mifune

Inukai

Takagishi

Horita

(2012). Modesty in self-presentation: A comparison between the USA and Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2011.01362.x

57.

Yeung

A. S.

Craven

R. G.

Kaur

(2014). Teachers’ self-concept and valuing of learning: Relations with teaching approaches and beliefs about students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.905670

58.

Zee

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effect on classroom process, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

59.

Zhu

Liu

Yang

Zhang

Shi

(2018). The relationship between teacher self-concept, teacher efficacy and burnout. Teachers and Teaching, 24(7), 788–801. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/13540602.2018.1483913

South Korean Preservice Teachers’ Self-Perception as Gifted: Impact on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Toward Gifted Education

Abstract

Keywords

Theoretical Framework

Preservice Teachers’ Self-Perception, Self-Efficacy, and Attitudes

Effect of Culture on Self-Perception

Definition of Giftedness in South Korea

Research Questions

Methods

Mixed-Methods Design

Survey Research Methods

Data Coding

Data Screening

Survey Data Analysis

Qualitative Research Methods

Semistructured Interview

Qualitative Data Analysis

Deductive Content Analysis

Results

South Korean Preservice Teachers’ Self-Perception of Being Gifted Themselves

Relationship Between Self-Perception of Being Gifted and Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Toward Gifted Education

South Korean Preservice Teachers Opinions About Self-Perceptions as Gifted

Discussion

Teachers’ Self-Perception of Being Gifted

Gender Difference in Teachers’ Self-Perception of Being Gifted

Relationship Between Sense of Efficacy and Self-Perception

Negative Correlation With Support of Gifted Education and Positive Correlation With Elitism

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Correction (December 2023):

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References