BRIEF REPORTMasculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychos

BRIEF REPORT
Masculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychosocial
Adjustment
Among Gifted Boys
Samuel J. Shepard, Megan Foley Nicpon, James T. Haley,
Michael Lind, and
William Ming Liu
The University of Iowa
Being an academically gifted boy may mean negotiating
masculinity. In this explor-
atory study, 58 gifted and talented adolescent boys completed
the Male Role Norms
Inventory–Adolescent (MRNI-A) and the Behavior Assessment
System for Children–
Self-Report of Personality (BASC-SRP-A). Correlation results
show endorsing tradi-
tional masculine norms was positively associated with feelings
of competency, confi-
dence, self-reliance, and feeling self-assured. Feelings of
inadequacy also decreased
when endorsement of masculine role norms increased. Adhering
to achievement and
status norms was associated with higher positive interpersonal
relationships in high
school and less social stress. Additionally, restricting emotions
was associated with less
satisfaction with friendships and social relationships for all
participants. Results gen-
erally show boys adherence to male role norms to be positively

related to their
perceptions of academic achievement. Research and clinical
implications are discussed.
Keywords: gifted boys, psychosocial adjustment, masculine
norms
Professionals in gifted education commonly
refer to students who exhibit talent in various
domains (e.g., intellectual ability, creativity,
leadership) as gifted (Colangelo & Davis,
2003). Collectively, these children tend to be
emotionally well-adjusted (Bain & Bell, 2004;
Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008; Nail &
Evans, 1997; Neihart, 1999; Roznowski, Reith,
& Hong, 2000); however, problems may arise
throughout development, such as depression,
perfectionism, social stigma, identity issues,
difficulty managing external expectations (Levy
& Plucker, 2003), or feeling unable to be one-
self in school (Cross & Coleman, 1993), due to
the “stigma of giftedness” (Cross, Coleman, &
Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991, p. 45). Among gifted
boys, Bartell and Reynolds (1986) found that
they reported lower self-esteem and higher lev-
els of depression than gifted girls. Others have
suggested that issues relating to masculinity can
interact with boys’ experience of giftedness in
ways that create unique challenges (Kerr &
Cohn, 2001) because what it means to be mas-
culine may have little in common with what it
means to be gifted. Rigid attitudes about mas-
culinity may result in conflict if thoughts and
behaviors they believe men should exhibit are
contrary to their own.

Current perspectives in the study of men and
masculinity view rigid adherence to traditional
male norms as problematic, even among ado-
lescent boys (Feder, Levant, & Dean, 2007).
Scholars view certain male problems–such as
violence, aggression, devaluation of women,
detached fathering, and underutilization of
physical and mental health services–as “unfor-
tunate but predictable results of the male role
socialization process” (Levant, 1996, p. 259).
Among adult males, adherence to traditional
male gender roles has been shown to be related
to depression (Good & Mintz, 1990), anxiety
(Davis, 1987), self-esteem (Davis, 1987), rela-
tionship satisfaction (Burn & Ward, 2005), and
Samuel J. Shepard, Megan Foley Nicpon, James T. Ha-
ley, Michael Lind, and William Ming Liu, Department of
Psychological and Quantitative Foundations, Counseling
Psychology Program, The University of Iowa.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Megan Foley Nicpon, 600 Blank Honors Center,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail:
[email protected]
Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American
Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 12, No. 2, 181–187 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI:
10.1037/a0019945
181
T
hi

s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch

ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs

.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u

se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at

ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
difficulties in intimacy (Maxton, 1994).
Whether such adherence is equally troublesome
among special populations of boys, such as
gifted boys, is unknown, yet scholars in gifted
education theorize that it is. For example, gifted
children often are regarded as having a height-
ened level of emotional sensitivity, increased
awareness of others’ feelings, and sensitivity to
criticism (Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert,
2002). These characteristics may be particularly
challenging for gifted boys because heightened
emotionality is incompatible with traditional
masculine norms like stoicism and emotional
suppression (Levant, 1992). Gifted boys may
repress feelings of loneliness, uncertainty, or
fear, as society teaches boys that these emotions
are not acceptable for men (Pollack, 1998).
Hébert (2002) cautions that gifted boys who
experience criticism from those who do not
value male sensitivity may withdraw emotion-
ally, putting them at risk for psychological
problems.
Gifted boys may find it difficult to reconcile
their abilities with their conceptualization of an

ideal masculine boy. Being “smart” or “brainy”
has little to do with traditional male stereotypes,
such as physical dominance, rugged self-
reliance, and aggression (Epstein, 1998; Leaper
& Van, 2008). They may perceive their abilities
are shunned and conceptualize their gifts as
social downfalls. Some gifted children deliber-
ately hide their abilities by dropping out of
advanced classes (Coleman & Cross, 1988;
Rimm, 2002). For gifted boys, it has been sug-
gested that certain activities (e.g., involvement
in student leadership) may be labeled as a fem-
inine, which could discourage them from enter-
ing these potentially beneficial environments
(Kerr & Foley Nicpon, 2003). It is important to
note that these ideas have not been empirically
tested, and some investigations suggest that
they may not be true. For example, research
examining the personality types of gifted stu-
dents suggests that they way gifted boys prob-
lem-solve and draw conclusions tends to be
based on logical, objective information more so
than with gifted girls (Cross, Speirs Neumeister,
& Cassady, 2007). Gifted boys also continue to
enter the math and sciences, fields with higher
male gender-linked expectations, with a higher
academic self-concept than gifted girls (Preckel,
Goetz, Pekrun, & Kleine, 2008). It is possible
that gifted boys’ adherence to some tradition-
ally masculine norms may not necessarily be
problematic.
The aforementioned review of the possible
effects of gifted boys’ adherence to masculine
norms has yet to be empirical investigated and

remains based on clinical experience; in fact,
few of the articles reviewed have an empirical
foundation (e.g., Bartell & Reynolds, 1986;
Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross et al., 2008;
Cross & Coleman, 1993; Cross et al., 2007;
Preckel et al., 2008). Therefore, the purpose of
this exploratory study was to measure the en-
dorsement of traditional masculine norms
among gifted adolescent boys and to examine
how these values are related to levels of psy-
chosocial adjustment and engagement in school.
It was anticipated that greater endorsement of
traditional masculine norms would be associ-
ated with poorer psychosocial adjustment and
more negative attitudes toward school.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 58 middle and high school
males (ages 12 – 18) enrolled in summer en-
richment programs at a university-based center
for gifted education. Program participation was
determined through a rigorous admissions pro-
cess that involved reviewing records of ability
and academic test scores demonstrating high
ability, grades, examples of work products, es-
says, and teacher and/or self-nominations.
These scholarship programs are highly compet-
itive and attract high ability students in specific
content areas (mathematics, leadership, science,
etc.). Students were from urban and rural set-
tings and two-hundred survey packets were
mailed; the 58 participants reflect a 29% return
rate. This relatively low response rate may have

been influenced by timing (summer recruitment
when students typically are busy with extracur-
ricular activities) or a pathology-based percep-
tion of the BASC. Ninety percent identified as
Caucasian, 5% as Asian American, and 5%
“other.” Over 95% reported a GPA of 3.04 or
higher. Approximately 35% reported an annual
family income of more than $100,000; 29%
reported incomes between $61,000 and
$100,000, 17% between $41,000 and $60,000,
and 7% between $21,000 and $40,000.
182 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d

by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne

o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s

ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd

is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Procedures
Researchers mailed survey packets to par-
ents/guardians of students enrolled in the pro-
grams; if consent was granted, parents were
asked to give the surveys to their boys to com-
plete. Packets contained an informed consent,
assent to participate, demographic data sheet,

postage-paid return envelope, and the research
questionnaires. Forms emphasized that research
participation was voluntary and that lack of
participation would not affect program status.
Individuals were not compensated for their par-
ticipation and measures took approximately 20
to 30 minutes to complete.
Measures
Behavior Assessment System for Chil-
dren–Self-Report of Personality. The
BASC-SRP (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) is
one of several assessments designed to inform
differential diagnosis and treatment of chil-
dren. While the BASC-SRP provides infor-
mation about maladjustment, it also assesses
positive, adaptive behaviors in respondents
that can be utilized in various environments.
The adolescent version of the Self-Report of
Personality (SRP-A; ages 12–18) consists of
186 true-false items and takes 30 – 45 minutes
to complete. These items yield scores on 14
different scales: 10 that measure maladjust-
ment (Anxiety, Attitude to School, Attitude to
Teachers, Atypicality, Depression, Locus of
Control, Sensation Seeking, Sense of Inade-
quacy, Social Stress, and Somatization) and
four that measure positive adjustment (Inter-
personal Relations, Relations with Parents,
Self-Esteem, and Self-Reliance). The instru-
ment is scored by computer, and results are
reported as T scores. Internal consistencies
(coefficient alpha reliabilities) for the 14
BASC-SRP-A subscales range from .64 –.89
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). Test–retest

reliability is moderate to high (.57-.87), and
convergent and divergent is high when com-
paring children’s scores to those on other
self-report measures (for example, Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory; Hathaway
& McKinley, 1942/1970). Because reliability
has been well-established, BASC alpha val-
ues are not commonly reported in the research
literature (e.g., Demaray, Malecki, Davidson,
Hodgson, & Rebus, 2005; Mahone, Zabel,
Levey, Verda, & Kinsman, 2002; Nail & Ev-
ans, 1997). Based on the review of the liter-
ature on gifted boys, the following eight
scales that were thought to be most influenced
by adherence to masculine attitudes among
this population were examined: Anxiety, At-
titude to School, Depression, Sense of Inad-
equacy, Interpersonal Relations, Self-Esteem,
Self-Reliance, and Social Stress.
Male Role Norms Inventory–Adolescent.
The MRNI-A (Levant, Graef, Smalley, Wil-
liams, & McMillan, 2008) consists of 43 items
designed to measure boys’ masculinity atti-
tudes. Using a 7-point Likert scale, participants
indicate their level of agreement with state-
ments concerning male roles/behaviors (1 �
Strongly Disagree, 7 � Strongly Agree). Higher
scores indicate greater endorsement of tradi-
tional masculine norms. The MRNI-A has five
scales that assess these theoretically derived
traditional norms: Avoidance of Femininity
(e.g., “A boy should prefer football to sew-
ing.”); Self-Reliance (e.g., “A boy should never
doubt his own judgment.”); Aggression (e.g.,

“When the going gets tough, boys should get
tough.”); Achievement/Status (“A boy should
do whatever it takes to be admired and re-
spected.”); and Restrictive Emotionality (“A
boy should never reveal his worries to others.”).
Internal consistencies for the current study were
as follows: Self-Reliance (� � .58), Achieve-
ment/Status (� � .59), and Aggression (� �
.63), which were below the expected standard
(.70), and Avoidance of Femininity (� � .84)
and Restrictive Emotionality (� � .80), which
above the expected standard.
Results
Mean scores, standard deviations, and inter-
nal consistencies for the MRNI-A subscales,
Avoidance of Femininity, Self-Reliance, Ag-
gression, Achievement/Status, and Restrictive
Emotionality, and means and standard devia-
tions for the selected BASC-SRP-A subscales
are presented in Table 1. In keeping with liter-
ature that suggests gifted boys may be less
adherent to traditional masculine norms (e.g.,
Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert, 2002), it is
notable that participants’ mean scores on all
MRNI-A subscales except Self-Reliance were
183PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AMONG GIFTED BOYS
T
hi
s
do

cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og

ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T

hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o

f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b

ro
ad
ly
.
found to be significantly lower than those re-
ported by Levant et al. (2008) among a sample
of American boys. T tests comparing the two
groups were all significant at an alpha level
of 0.01. Because of the exploratory nature of
this study, an alpha level of 0.10 was used for
all subsequent analyses (e.g., Ford, Havstad,
Brooks, & Tilley, 2002; Marra et al., 2002;
Morris, 1957).
The correlations between all MRNI-A sub-
scales and participant age, grade, and BASC-
SRP-A subscales are presented in Table 2. The
correlations between the MRNI-A scales and
participant age and grade level were included in
the table because previous research has found
that age is negatively correlated with more tra-
ditional attitudes toward male roles among ad-
olescent males (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku,
1994). However, this was not observed in the
present study, as no significant correlations
were found between MRNI-A subscales and
participant age or grade.
Significant positive correlations were ob-
served between BASC-SRP-A Self-Reliance
and MRNI-A Achievement/Status, Self-Reli-
ance, Avoidance of Femininity, and Aggression

subscales. This suggests that greater endorse-
ment of these masculine norms was associated
with increased feelings of self-reliance. Signif-
icant negative correlations were observed be-
tween the MRNI-A Achievement/Status and the
BASC-SRP-A Sense of Inadequacy subscales
and between the MRNI-A Self-Reliance and the
Sense of Inadequacy subscales. This suggests
that greater endorsement of the norms of
Achievement/Status and Self-Reliance was as-
sociated with decreased feelings of inadequacy.
A significant negative correlation was observed
between the MRNI-A Achievement/Status and
the BASC-SRP-A Social Stress subscales, sug-
gesting that increased endorsement of the im-
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Male Role Norms
Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A) and Behavior
Assessment System for Children–Self-Report of
Personality-Adolescent (BASC-SRP-A)
Subscale M SD
MRNI-A
Achievement/Status 3.93 0.72
Aggression 4.32 0.79
Avoidance of Femininity 3.89 1.10
Restrictive Emotionality 3.57 0.84
Self-Reliance 4.36 0.70
BASC-SRP-A
Anxiety 45.12 8.33
Attitude to School 47.02 7.79

Depression 45.67 4.82
Inadequacy 42.26 5.22
Interpersonal Relations 52.98 6.72
Self-Esteem 52.98 7.60
Self-Reliance 54.38 5.96
Social Stress 47.02 9.07
Table 2
Correlations Between Subscales of the Male Role Norms
Inventory-Adolescent and Participant Age,
Grade, and Scores on the Behavior Assessment System for
Children–Self-Report of Personality-Adolescent
Achievement/Status Aggression
Avoidance of
Femininity
Restrictive
Emotionality Self-Reliance
Age .06 .13 .06 .01 .01
Grade .08 .03 .10 �.02 �.04
Anxiety �.11 �.02 .05 �.01 �.13
Attitude/School �.02 .03 �.07 .11 �.15
Depression �.08 �.05 .02 .15 �.06
Inadequacy �.42�� .06 �.09 .01 �.34��
Int/Relations .22 .14 .01 �.20 .15
Self-Esteem .09 �.02 .05 �.10 .11
Self-Reliance .32� .22� .25� .11 .33�
Social Stress �.24� �.08 .04 .13 �.09
Note. Attitude/School � Attitude to School; Attitude/Teachers
� Attitude to Teachers; Inadequacy � Sense of Inade-

quacy; Int/Relations � Interpersonal Relations.
�Correlation is significant at the .10 level (2-tailed).
�Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
��Correlation
is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A

m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a

lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo

r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to

b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
portance of achievement and status was associ-
ated with fewer reports of stressful feelings in
social situations.
Discussion
The results of the current study run counter to
the literature on gifted boys presented earlier
and the expectations of the authors. It was an-
ticipated that, because academically gifted ado-
lescent males as a group are thought to be in
violation of traditional masculine norms–for in-
stance, by having increased emotional sensitiv-
ity (Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert,

2002)–that greater endorsement of traditional
norms would result in dissonance that might
manifest itself as maladjustment. However, no
aspects of traditional masculinity were associ-
ated with greater levels of maladjustment as
measured by the BASC-SRP-A.
One possible explanation for these unex-
pected findings is that the adolescent boys in the
current study, despite having significantly lower
scores on most of the MRNI-A subscales than a
general sample of American boys, did not per-
ceive themselves to be in violation of traditional
masculine norms. As a result, the participants
may not have perceived any failure to live up to
the masculine norms they endorsed, resulting in
a lack of dissonance and maladjustment. With
regard to attitudes toward school, it is feasible
that the participants in the current study did not
view academic activities as feminine (as sug-
gested by Kerr & Foley Nicpon, 2003) and,
thus, did not perceive the need to avoid them.
Another possible explanation is that the tradi-
tional masculine norms measured by the
MRNI-A scales are simply not as harmful to
gifted adolescent boys as expected and, instead,
that some levels of endorsement of these norms
may even be adaptive.
Results from this exploratory study also dem-
onstrated that increased feelings of confidence
and self-reliance among gifted adolescent boys
were associated with increased endorsement of
the masculine norms of Achievement/Status,
Self-Reliance, Avoidance of Femininity, and
Aggression. Gifted adolescent boys who indi-

cated these constructs were important male at-
tributes reported feeling more self-assured. Be-
cause of the correlational nature of this study,
no causal relationship can be determined (e.g.,
feelings of self-reliance could lead to endorse-
ment of traditional masculine norms or endorse-
ment of these norms could lead gifted boys to
feel more self-assured). Decreased feelings of
inadequacy were associated with greater en-
dorsement of the norms of Achievement/Status
and Self-Reliance. Participants who felt that it
was important for men to be self-reliant and to
strive for achievement reported fewer feelings
of inadequacy and a greater sense of compe-
tency. Striving for achievement and status may
make gifted adolescent boys feel more worth-
while, or achievement and status may fulfill a
sense of mastery in competition (Pollack,
1998). Greater endorsement of Achievement/
Status was also associated with decreased re-
ports of social stress. It may be that gifted
adolescent boys generally value achievement
and, thus, experience less social stress when
meeting these expectations.
Clinical and Research Implications
For participants in our study, those who more
highly endorsed traditional male norms, partic-
ularly the importance of achievement and sta-
tus, appeared more psychosocially and interper-
sonally satisfied. Clinicians should consider this
relationship when conceptualizing clients’ dis-
tress. Would a gifted boy whose dream is to be
a high school music teacher feel self-doubt

about whether he is pursuing a career that has
enough social status? Clinicians should include
in their discussion what it means to be a gifted
male, how male norms influence this role, and
how they want to demonstrate their masculinity
developmentally. The same is true for educators
of gifted boys. Engaging boys in a discussion
about how their high ability interacts with their
perceptions of masculinity may be a meaningful
component to their educational experience.
Because endorsement of several aspects of
traditional masculinity (Self-Reliance, Aggres-
sion, Avoidance of Femininity, and Achieve-
ment/Status) was associated with positive psy-
chosocial adjustment, this study raises the need
for further research verifying the potential pos-
itive aspects of adherence to certain masculine
norms among gifted adolescent boys. Could the
importance of pursuing achievement among
gifted adolescent boys diminish problems with
academic underachievement? Are there optimal
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i

s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss

oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic

le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di

vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.

levels of adherence to constructs such as self-
reliance that predict adaptive levels of persis-
tence?
Limitations
First, the MRNI-A and the BASC-SRP-A
Self-Reliance scales were significantly corre-
lated, although the relationship was not very
strong. This low correlation may be because (a)
the scales, although similarly labeled, assess
different constructs; (b) the BASC-SRP-A may
be based on a less normal population than the
MRNI-A; (c) the MRNI-A Self-Reliance scale
consists of items embedded within a measure of
masculinity; and (d) the differences in wording
between the two measures. Therefore, partici-
pants may be primed to think of gender related
self-reliance, thereby leading to a different con-
ceptualization of self-reliance in the MRNI-A
than in the BASC-SRP-A. Second, although
positive aspects of adjustment were associated
with increased adherence to the Achievement/
Status and Self-Reliance norms, results should
be interpreted with caution because of poor
internal consistencies. Because these two scales
do not appear to measure a unified construct, it
is impossible to determine if they actually rep-
resent these intended constructs. Third, because
of the program specific admission criteria for
the various summer programs, participants do
not constitute a well-defined population of
gifted adolescent boys. While admission to the

scholarship programs is rigorous, the same abil-
ity and achievement data is not obtained for all
participants. However, admission is competitive
and students are not admitted unless they clearly
demonstrate talent in a specific program area
(i.e., science, creative writing, mathematics,
etc.). This domain specific talent identification
technique is a model consistent with progres-
sive conceptualizations of what it means to be
gifted (Lohman, 2005, 2006). Fourth, no com-
parison group of nongifted males was used;
such a group should be included in future re-
search to determine if and how gifted adolescent
boys differ from peers on these constructs. Fi-
nally, only the self-report section of the BASC
was used to measure psychosocial adjustment;
findings would be enriched by including the
teacher- and parent-report forms.
References
Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept,
social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth,
fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to
high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3),
167–178.
Bartell, N. P., & Reynolds, W. M. (1986). Depression
and self-esteem in academically gifted and non-
gifted children: A comparison study. Journal of
School Psychology, 24, 51– 61.
Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men’s confor-
mity to traditional masculinity and relationship
satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
6(4), 254 –263.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of
gifted education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted
a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 11, 41–56.
Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams,
C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted adoles-
cents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 52(4), 326 –339.
Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (1993). The social
cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of
the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review,
16(1), 37– 40.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M.
(1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents
in the schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1),
44 –55.
Cross, T. L., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Cassady,
J. C. (2007). Psychological types of academically
gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3),
285–294.
Davis, F. (1987). Antecedents and consequences of
gender role conflict: An empirical test of sex-role
strain analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University). Dissertation Abstracts International,
48/11, 3443.
Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Davidson, L. M.,

Hodgson, K. K., & Rebus, P. J. (2005). The rela-
tionship between social support and student adjust-
ment: A longitudinal analysis. Psychology in the
Schools, 42, 691–706.
Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. (2005). Sensi-
tivity: A double-edged sword for the preadolescent
and adolescent gifted child. Roeper Review, 27,
69 –77.
Epstein, D. (1998). Real boys don’t work: “Under-
achievement, masculinity, and the harassment of
sissies”. In D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, & J.
Maw (Eds.), Failing boys? Issues in Gender and
Achievement (pp. 96 –108). Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri

gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n

or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te

nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u

se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Feder, J., Levant, R. F., & Dean, J. (2007). Boys and
violence: A gender-informed analysis. Profes-
sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(4),

385–391.
Ford, M. E., Havstad, S. L., Brooks, B. L., & Tilley,
B. C. (2002). Perceptions of diabetes among pa-
tients in an urban health care system. Ethnicity &
Health, 7, 243–254.
Good, G. E., & Mintz, L. B. (1990). Gender role
conflict and depression in college men: Evidence
for compounded risk. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 69(1), 17–21.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1970). Minne-
sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneap-
olis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original pub-
lished in 1942)
Hébert, T. P. (2002). Gifted males. In M. Neihart,
S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.),
The social and emotional development of gifted
children: What do we know? (pp. 137–144). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent,
manhood, & the search for meaning. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Foley Nicpon, M. (2003). Gender and
giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 493–
505). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideol-
ogy, covert sexism, and perceived gender typical-
ity in relation to men’s academic motivation and
choice in college. Psychology of Men & Masculin-

ity, 9, 139 –153.
Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of
masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology, 5,
379 – 402.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men.
Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 27, 259 –265.
Levant, R. F., Graef, S. T., Smalley, K. B., Williams, C.,
& McMillan, N. (2008). The evaluation of the Male
Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A). Thy-
mos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 2, 46 –59.
Levy, J. L., & Plucker, J. A. (2003). Assessing the
psychological presentation of gifted and talented
clients: A multicultural perspective. Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, 16, 229 –247.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on
talent: Implications for identification of academi-
cally gifted minority students. Journal for the Ed-
ucation of the Gifted, 28, 333–360.
Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences be-
tween ability and accomplishment: From folk theo-
ries to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32– 40.
Mahone, E. M., Zabel, T. A., Levey, E., Verda, M., &
Kinsman, S. (2002). Parent and self-report ratings
of executive function in adolescents with myelo-
meningocele and hydrocephalus. Child Neuropsy-
chology, 8, 258 –270.
Marra, C. M., Rajicic, N., Barker, D. E., Cohen,

B. A., Clifford, D., Post, M. J. D., . . . the Adult
AIDS Clinical Trials Group 363 Team. (2002). A
pilot study of cidofovir for progressive multifocal
leukoencephalopathy in AIDS. AIDS, 16, 1791–
1797.
Maxton, R. A. (1994). How do men in mid-life
conceptualize masculinity, and how do those con-
ceptualizations relate to intimacy? Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering. p. 4432.
Morris, R. P. (1957). An exploratory study of some
personality characteristics of gamblers. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 13, 191–193.
Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional
adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global
functioning. Roeper Review, 20, 18 –21.
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psy-
chological well-being. Roeper Review, 22, 10 –17.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994).
Attitudes toward male roles among adolescent
males: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex
Roles, 30, 481–501.
Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons
from the myths of boyhood. New York, NY: Henry
Holt.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M.
(2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-
ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2),
146 –159.

Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behav-
ior assessment system for children: Manual. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social accep-
tance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis,
N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social
and emotional development of gifted children:
What do we know? (pp. 13–18). Waco, TX: Pru-
frock Press.
Roznowski, M., Reith, J., & Hong, S. (2000). A
further look at youth intellectual giftedness and its
correlates: Values, interests, performance, and be-
havior. Intelligence, 28, 87–113.
Received August 10, 2009
Revision received April 7, 2010
Accepted April 8, 2010 �
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i

Grader - Instructions Excel 2019
ProjectExp19_Excel_AppCapstone_Intro_Collection
Project Description:
You are the financial manager for Judi’s Art Gallery. One of
your clients, Raymond Chancellor, has a large collection of
limited edition signed art by James C. Christensen (1942-2017).
Over the years, you have helped Raymond maintain a list of his
collection, including the title of the art, medium, issue date,
issue price, the price he paid, and current market values. Most
of the art is sold out from the publisher, which increases the
value of the art. Other art is still readily available or is
available in limited quantities. You want to update the list so
that he can properly insure his collection.
Steps to Perform:
Step
Instructions
Points Possible
1
Start Excel. Download and open the file named
Exp19_Excel_AppCapstone_Intro_Collection.xlsx. Grader has
automatically added your last name to the beginning of the
filename.
0
2
Select the range A1:A6 on the Christensen worksheet, merge the
cells, and apply Middle Align vertical alignment.
2
3
Change the width of column K to 17.00, select the range K1:K3,
and apply Thick Outside Borders.
2
4
Click cell C9, and freeze panes so that rows 1 through 8 and
columns A and B are frozen.

1
5
Select the range E9:E54 and apply the Mar-12 date format.
2
6
Find all occurrences of Retired and replace them with Sold Out.
2
7
Click cell H9 on the Christensen worksheet, and insert a
formula that calculates the percentage Raymond paid of the
issue price by dividing the amount Paid by the Issue Price.
Copy the formula from cell H9 to the range H10:H54.
3
8
Click cell J9, and insert a formula that calculates the percentage
change in value by subtracting the Issue Price from the Current
Value and then dividing that result by the Issue Price. Copy the
formula from cell J9 to the range J10:J54.
3
9
Apply Percent Style with one decimal place to the ranges
H9:H54 and J9:J54.
2
10
Insert in the Current Values section at the top of the worksheet
summary functions that use the range I9:I54. In cell I2,
calculate the total of all the Current Values. In cell I3, calculate
the average current value. in cell I4, calculate the lowest current
value. In cell I5, calculate the highest current value.
12
11
Click cell C9 and insert a VLOOKUP function that looks up the
code in cell B9, compares it to the codes and types of art in the
range B2:C6, and returns the type of art. Copy the function in
cell C9 to the range C9:C54. Hide column B that contains the
codes.

5
12
Click cell K9 and insert an IF function that determines if the
Issue Price is equal to the Current Value. If the values are the
same, display Same as Issue (using the cell reference K2);
otherwise, display Increased in Value (using the cell reference
K3). Copy the function from cell K9 to the range K10:K54.
4
13
Display the Purchase worksheet, insert a row above Monthly
Payment. Type Monthly Payments in 1 Year in cell A5 and type
12 in cell B5.
2
14
In cell B6 in the Purchasing sheet, insert the payment function
to calculate the monthly payment using cell references, not
numbers, in the function, and make sure the function displays a
positive result. Apply Accounting Number Format and the
Output cell style to cell B6.
5
15
Display the Christensen worksheet, select the range C1:E6, and
create a clustered column chart.
4
16
Cut the chart and paste it in cell A57, change the height to 4",
and change the width to 6.5". Add Alt Text The column chart
compares total issue prices to total current values by type of art.
(include the period).
4
17
Type Raymond’s Art Collection for the chart title, apply bold,
and Black, Text 1 font color. Place the legend at the top of the
chart. Add Primary Minor Horizontal gridlines.
4
18

Create a pie chart using the ranges C2:C6 and E2:E6, and then
move the chart to a new chart sheet named Current Values.
Move the Current Values sheet to the right of the Purchase
sheet.
5
19
Type Percentage of Total Current Value as the chart title and
change the font size to 18 pt. Choose Colorful Palette 3 for the
chart colors. Add this description for Alt Text: The pie chart
shows each art type by percentage of total current value.
(include the period).
4
20
Hide the legend. Add data labels for categories and percentages;
remove value data labels. Change the font size to 16 pt, bold,
and Black, Text 1 font color for the data labels.
4
21
Explode the Masterwork Anniversary Edition slice by 15% and
change the fill color to Light Blue.
1
22
Display the Christensen worksheet, click in any cell within the
dataset, convert the data to a table, assign a table name
Collection, and apply Green, Table Style Light 14.
4
23
Apply a conditional format to the range J9:J54 that highlights
cells where the value is greater than 200% with Green Fill with
Dark Green Text.
3
24
Sort the dataset by Type of Art in alphabetical order and then
within Type of Art, sort by Current Value from largest to
smallest.
4

25
Set a filter to display art that equals Sold Out as the status.
3
26
Add a total row to display the sum of the Issue Price, Paid, and
Current Values columns. Remove the total for the Note column.
3
27
Select the Purchase sheet, set 2" top margin, and center
horizontally on page.
2
28
Select the Christensen sheet, select Landscape orientati on,
Legal paper size, set 0.2" left and right margins, 0.5" top and
bottom margins, and set row 8 to repeat at the top of pages.
5
29
On the Christensen worksheet, change the width of column A to
27, the width of column D to 11, the width of column J to 12.
Wrap text in cell A1 and cell J8.
3
30
Create a footer with Exploring Series on the left side, the sheet
tab code in the center, and file name code on the right side on
the Christensen sheet.
2
31
Save and close
Exp19_Excel_AppCapstone_Intro_Collection.xlsx. Exit Excel.
Submit the file as directed.
0
Total Points
100
Created On: 11/24/2020 1
Exp19_Excel_AppCapstone_Intro - Collection 1.7

GIFTED CHILD TODAY January 2020
46
Feature
Abstract: Using the Frame of Reference lens developed
by Marsh, this article explains how elementary-age
gifted boys construct their self-perceptions as learners by
comparing their academic abilities with those of their peers.
Understanding giftedness defined as a social construct,
this article discusses an ethnographic study that examines
gifted boys’ self-perceptions and their teachers’ perceptions
of them as learners. Data collected from observations and
interviews are analyzed to discuss the study’s findings that
are explored through three themes. First, the participants
want their teachers to understand that although they value
their gifted identities, they still have academic needs for
which they need help. Second,
gifted boys believe their classroom
behaviors are often misunderstood.
Third, the participants want a voice
about the curriculum assigned to
them. These findings conclude by
examining implications for teachers
to address the perceptions of boys
as students in their classrooms.
Keywords: giftedness, self-concept,
Frame of Reference theory, social
construct
Purpose of the Study

I embarked on this study through
my own self-perceptions as a teacher,
an administrator, and a parent. During my professional
experience in public education, I carefully balanced these three
roles to serve every student I had the privilege of teaching and
leading. Through successes and failures, I have learned that
being an educator invokes a personal commitment of delving
into theories and practices to enrich classroom instruction and
provide opportunities for student learning and development.
Being a parent of a gifted boy has given me another level of
insight into how classroom theories and practices affect
students. These new insights include the contributions of social
and emotional well-being to academic and school achievement.
Because of my experiences, this study is an integral part of my
professional and personal biography. Having a gifted son, I
quickly learned that I lacked the training in how to implement
educational programs and services that are inclusive of the
social and emotional aspects of many gifted children. I learned
that I did not give enough attention to
the importance of connecting content
to the social and emotional growth of
gifted students. Previously, I believed
that they, as highly intellectual
individuals, took care of and regulated
their own internal needs. The
recognition of my limited knowledge
about giftedness and the desire to
understand how to improve instruction
for gifted students influenced the
purpose of this study: to examine how
giftedness is perceived by boys within
the school environment.

In this article, I suggest that teachers
who emphasize gifted students’
intellectual potential without regard for
their socio-emotional connections to
learning lack understanding about how
students’ perceptions of their academic achievements influence
how they feel about themselves (Bailey, 2011; Shavelson,
Hubner,
& Stanton, 1976). Noting the scarcity of in-depth studies that
include elementary-age males as participants (Pinxten et al.,
2015),
880579GCTXXX10.1177/1076217519880579Gifted Child
TodayGifted Child Today
research-article2019
“Ask Me and I Will Tell You”
Gifted Boys’ Perceptions of Self and School
Jessica Watts, MEd1
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519880579. From
1Oklahoma State University. Address correspondence to:
Jessica Watts, MEd, College of Education, Health, & Aviation,
Oklahoma State University, 260
Willard Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA; email:
[email protected]
For Article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s Web site at
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s)
“
Marsh’s Frame
of Reference
theory can serve as a

model for
understanding the
development of
elementary-age
gifted boys’ self-
concepts.”
mailto:[email protected]
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
47
vol. 43 ■ no. 1 GIFTED CHILD TODAY
I conducted an ethnographic study involving 10 gifted male
students in a public suburban elementary school (Grades 3-5) to
shed light on these students’ unique and personal perspectives
through the theoretical lens of Herbert W. Marsh’s (1990)
Frame of
Reference theory. Understanding my role as a researcher, I
committed myself to allowing the student participants to share
their school experiences and report the findings from their
perspectives. The findings and implications discussed in this
article
express the significance of teachers in helping gifted boys
develop
healthy self-perceptions of themselves at school.
Literature Review
Socially Constructed Definition of Giftedness

All of the participants in this study were identified as gifted
and talented (GT) using an intelligence test and a matrix
measuring specific academic abilities. To further my
understanding of gifted identification as it is defined by the
participating district, I explored Pfeiffer’s (2012) description of
giftedness that stresses intelligence scores do not tell educators
everything about the intelligence of a child. He explained
giftedness as not only defined by an intelligence score, but also
is a socially constructed concept. He stressed that individuals
can be gifted in one area or another and it is difficult to identify
giftedness in such concrete terms (Pfeiffer, 2012). Examining
giftedness through a socially constructed lens helps teachers
deepen their understandings about the exceptional intelligence
and behaviors that are above and beyond the modes of thinking
for most people. While there is no argument against an
intelligence test as a measure of cognitive ability, Pfeiffer
(2012)
and Olszewski-Kubilius and Thomson (2015) focus on other
components such as creativity, independence, and sociality in
the classroom to measure overall ability of high-achieving
students. Similar findings by Baum, Schader, and Hébert (2014)
noted several other socially constructed factors that support
superior talents and cultivate growth in students: a
psychologically safe classroom, tolerance for various levels of
emotional maturity, and positive teacher–student relationships.
Additional criteria noted by Baudson and Preckel (2016)
included creativity, social skills, independence, individual
motivation, and high verbal skills. In this study, the
participating
school district’s definition of giftedness, which incorporates
intelligence measurements and a matrix of performances and
behaviors that demonstrate qualities that are superior to same-
age peers within the school contexts, guided the inquiry. These
qualities, as described in the next section, influence teachers’
perceptions of gifted boys in their classrooms.

Influence of Gender Role on Teachers’ Perceptions
Bailey’s (2011) examination of gifted students and their ego
development illustrated that teachers are often trained to
emphasize intellectual potential rather than the influence of
emotional development on learning. Bailey’s (2011) study found
teachers held gendered assumptions that influenced their
instructional approaches to addressing the academic, social, and
emotional needs of gifted boys. For example, Preckel, Baudson,
Krolak-Schwerdt, and Glock (2015) engaged in a rigorous
mixed
design study to investigate whether stereotypes about gifted
students affected teachers’ attitudes toward their academic
achievement versus assumptions about their behaviors. They
found teachers focused more on boys’ negative behaviors than
their positive ones (Preckel et al., 2015). In another study,
teachers’ expectations about how students were expected to
behave were based on their academic ability rather than their
social maturity (Hamilton & Roberts, 2017). Boys demonstrated
high performance in some subjects yet exhibited poorer social
and behavioral skills, such as joking around and not taking
learning as seriously as they were expected to; yet they were
still held to high behavioral standards despite the asynchrony
between the two aspects of personal and school development
(Hamilton & Roberts, 2017). Finding similar analyses, another
study illustrated that teachers’ misconceptions about gifted
students sometimes increased the risks for unwanted student
behaviors because teachers lacked understanding about how to
teach these learners (Baudson & Preckel, 2016). Farrell’s
(2016)
study also suggested the importance of teachers adopting
pedagogy that provided appropriate spaces for boys to learn in
ways that interested and engaged them by utilizing their
personal learning preferences. Understanding how boys prefer
to learn can help teachers design more inclusive and

academically appropriate curriculum (Legewie & DiPrete,
2012).
Gifted Boys’ Self-Perceptions Within
the Social and Academic Context
Händel, Vialle, and Ziegler’s (2013) study described how
gifted boys perceived themselves within their social and
academic environments. Peers admired their classmates who
had high achievements in extracurricular activities but not in
academic endeavors. Students who excelled in math and
science were viewed as more intelligent than their peers but
less socially adept than others who were gifted athletically or in
foreign languages. They noted, “These results are of importance
because they show that successful peers are characterized
differently as a function of the school subject in which their
high achievement is attained” (Händel, Vialle, & Ziegler, 2013,
p. 109). Peer acceptance’s influence on self-perceptions of
highly intelligent boys is also supported by another study.
Rentzsch, Schutz, and Schroder-Abe (2011) sought to
understand if being labeled as gifted attributed to more social
acceptance and increased self-esteem. These researchers found
that high achievement was admired by peers, but only if gifted
students showed a conscious level of modesty about it
(Rentzsch et al., 2011). A study by Gallagher (2015) found
peer’s
social acceptance of gifted students decreased when gifted
students flaunted their academic superiority and when they
displayed various immature behaviors. This study also
illuminated the importance of gifted students not wanting to be
out-casted by their peers; therefore, they exhibited less
intellectual capacity than they possessed because they tried to
fit in with their average ability peers (Gallagher, 2015).

48
January 2020GIFTED CHILD TODAY
Conceptual Framework
Marsh (1990) and Williams and Montgomery (1995) articulated
that self-concept development has long been recognized as
critical
to understanding the potentialities of academic achievement and
their relationship to educational considerations for high-ability
students. Marsh’s (1990) Frame of Reference theory can serve
as a
model for understanding the development of gifted boys’ self-
concepts. Marsh (1990) developed a model that explained two
comparisons students often make to define their self-concepts as
learners among their peers: internal academic and external
nonacademic comparisons, or frames of reference. According to
this theory, “Students concurrently compare both their
individual
academic achievements across subject areas (internal
comparisons) and their ability levels relative to others within
their
learning environment (external comparisons)” (Williams &
Montgomery, 1995, p. 401). The development of internal and
external comparisons is common between math and verbal skills
and consist of students’ feelings about their potential to perform
well in math as compared with their abilities in other subject
areas; thereby, influencing students’ academic and social
dispositions (Pinxten et al., 2015; Shaalvik & Rankin, 1990).
For
example, students who believed they performed poorly in math,
most likely believed they were good readers. Shaalvik and
Rankin
(1990) found that students compared their self-perceptions as
learners with their peers within a similar frame of reference to

judge their own academic abilities. In addition, Swiatek (2004)
understood Marsh’s (1990) Frame of Reference theory by
describing gifted students in this way:
how a student might have a poor self-concept in a
particular academic area despite strong academic
performance in that area. For an achieving gifted student,
external comparisons are likely to strengthen self-
concept, as the student’s academic performance
compares favorably to the performance of others. Internal
comparisons, however, are expected to weaken self-
concept in areas in which the student perceives himself
or herself to be relatively weak. (p. 104)
An examination of internal and external comparisons is
essential to understanding elementary students’ development of
academic and personal self-concept (Pinxten et al., 2015).
Research Methods and Procedures
A 4-month ethnographic study involving elementary-age
male participants was conducted during the spring 2017 school
semester (February-May). These overarching research questions
guided the study:
1. What are the particular challenges that gifted boys in
elementary school face?
2. How do gifted boys conceptualize the social aspects of
school?
3. How do gifted boys perceive themselves as students?
Research Site
The research site was a PK-5 elementary school with

approximately 600 students. This elementary school has had a
long-standing designation as a Title I school with about 80% of
the student population served by the free and reduced federal
lunch program during any given school year. During the year in
which the research occurred, this school served a diverse
population with approximately 50% of students identified as
White and 27% as Hispanic with 11 different languages spoken
among the student population. Nearly half of the students
experienced low-socioeconomic home lives because their
parents were enrolled as either half-time or full-time students at
the local university, therefore, making it difficult for parents to
make ends meet when juggling both work and school while
raising their families. The other half of the student population
experienced low-socioeconomic living conditions because of
other factors such as lack of household income or stable
housing.
The GT program at this school served about 60 students in
second through fifth grades; this enrollment was low in
comparison with other elementary school sites in the same
district that served about 100 students each in their gifted
programs. Qualified students attended the school’s pull-out
program 3 to 4 days/week for 40-min sessions. General
education teachers were also expected to address individual
academic needs within their classrooms as deemed appropriate
by students’ achievement levels.
Participants
The participants met the following criteria: (a) male students
enrolled in Grades 3-5, (b) identified as GT by the school
district’s evaluation measures, and (c) enrolled in the GT
program at the school site for at least 1 year or more prior to
the study. To identify students for services in specific academic
areas, the school district used these instruments: Cognitive
Abilities Test (CogAT), teacher rating scales, a portfolio, a self-

directed student project illustrating innovation and creativity,
and classroom assessments including curriculum unit tests,
benchmark tests, and process grades. Teachers referred students
who demonstrated consistent academic or creative skills above
grade level for the GT program beginning as early as first
grade.
All of these assessments were submitted to the district’s GT
coordinator who is responsible for reviewing assessments and
enrollment into the program. Qualifying students needed to
have an overall intelligence score of 120 or higher as measured
by the CogAT or a score of 120 or higher on one or more
CogAT subtests. They also needed to score a minimum of 40
points on the district-designed matrix for gifted identification.
Of the 19 students who met all criteria for participation in
this research, 10 boys volunteered to participate. I assigned
undisclosed pseudonyms to the 10 boys who volunteered to be
a part of my study. Their parents and guardians provided
written permission allowing me to observe them in their
classrooms and during unstructured school times, such as lunch
49
and recess. They also permitted their child to participate in
semi-structured, individual interviews lasting approximately 20
min each. Five of the participants were enrolled in third grade,
one participant was enrolled in fourth grade, and four
participants were fifth graders.
Six of the participants were White, three were White and of
Hispanic Origin, and one was Native American. Two of the
participants spoke Spanish and English and another participant

spoke Arabic and English (see Table 1).
Data Collection
Data were collected from structured and unstructured
observations and individual interviews with the participants.
Informal jotting and field notes were the methods used to
collect data from 32 observations lasting from 20 to 60 min in
the general education classrooms, specials rotations which
engaged students in extracurricular activities, the GT pull -out
program meeting times, and during numerous unstructured
times such as in the hallways and during lunch times. One
semi-structured individual interview was held with each
participant during the school day in an available classroom
where students felt familiar and comfortable with their
surroundings. Each interview lasted approximately 20–30 min
and all participants were asked the same questions, but
subsequent questions varied based on their responses to the
standard questions (see the appendix for the interview
questions).
Data Analysis
Using the Frame of Reference theory as a lens to analyze
data, I used priori coding to discover themes threaded
throughout the observation field notes and interview transcripts.
To maintain credibility, I encouraged the participants to
converse with me freely during interviews and asked them to
clarify certain terms, such as social plains and slower learners,
as well as their personal perspectives about themselves and
school rather than relying on my own interpretation of their
dialogue. Lincoln and Guba (1986) suggest, “Credibility serves
as an analog to internal validity” (pp. 76–77). Acknowledging
that my previous work as an administrator provided me with
understandings about how school functions for gifted students

at this school site, I remained alert to my own reflexivity by
depending on the boys to interpret situations or dialogue that
occurred during my observations. I was always aware of my
obligation to establish trustworthiness through cross-
examination of observation and interview data. I coded my
reflections into themes to ensure I shared the perspectives of
my participants and not showcase what I wanted educators to
know based on my interpretation of the issues facing the boys.
Therefore, I maintained written fieldnotes and jottings that
included rich descriptions of the settings, activities,
participants’
behaviors, and recounts of conversations with all of the
participants (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1998).
Findings
The participants’ feelings about themselves in academic
settings, the social contexts of school, and how they feel about
school emerged as three central themes to my study.
Overgeneralization of Gifted Abilities
The first key theme was the participants’ feelings of
embarrassment when they struggled with understanding certain
subjects. The participants believed teachers expected them to
grasp every subject easily because of their gifted identities —
demonstrating a pedagogical myth that gifted students are
exceptional in all academic subjects. Dustin, age 9, shared that
Table 1. Participants’ Background Information
Participants’ pseudonyms Grade level Age (years) Ethnicity
Dustin 3 9 White
Henry 3 8 White

Nick 3 9 White/Hispanic
Ryan 3 9 White/Hispanic
Wyatt 3 9 White
Leo 4 10 Native American
Evan 5 10 White
Gavin 5 11 White/Hispanic
Joseph 5 11 White
50
he frequently gave up and felt poorly about himself because he
struggled in math. He divulged, “I don’t think teachers think I
need extra help with math because I am usually do pretty good
with other subjects. I don’t like math.” The tone of his voice
became softer after I asked him how he felt about himself when
he worked on his math assignments. “I don’t know, I’m not very
good at it, and that doesn’t make me feel good.” Watching his
body language change from alertness during our interview to a
withdrawal-like state when he talked about how he felt about
math demonstrated to me the importance of not
overgeneralizing the abilities of gifted children. Other
participants also expressed frustration, inadequacy, shame, and
dislike for subjects in which they were not confident. Gavin,
age
11, attributed his distaste for math to his perceived lack of

mathematical skills. Gavin said, “I can’t think of a time I really
liked math. I am just not very good at it.” Looking away from
me as if embarrassed to speak, he continued, “I don’t think that
I am as intelligent as my teachers think I am because math is
hard for me.” Leo, age 10, shared similar feelings about his
writing abilities: “I hate to write. I don’t know if that’s because
it’s hard for me or because I would rather do something I know
I am good at.”
Although the students acknowledged their academic
weaknesses for which they desired help, they adamantly stated
they did not want teachers offering them guidance during class
time because their peers would notice their assumed
incompetence—creating a fear of losing their gifted identities.
Henry added, “I know I am smart and I like to work by myself.
I don’t usually ask the teacher for help. I will just ask my
parents to help me at home.” Henry’s response illuminated the
importance for the participants to maintain their academic status
and their need for teachers to find discrete ways of helping
them with their academic challenges. If maintaining both
academic status and receiving discrete teacher assistance was
not achievable, they would rather miss out obtaining academic
skills than risk the demise of their intellectual status. “It makes
me feel good that other kids know I’m smart,” smiled Dustin.
When Leo was asked about how he felt other students
perceived him, he said, “It means a lot that they think I am
smart. It’s very hard to get into the gifted class. I like that kids
think I can do anything.”
Self-Concept and “Social Plains”
A crucial second theme was the boys’ personal connections
to the social aspects of the classroom, specifically how the
participants perceived their behaviors compared with that of
their peers. When I observed the social aspects of the
classroom, I gained more understanding about why the boys

felt discouraged when their behaviors were misunderstood as
insubordination. I witnessed several of the participants
corrected for “misbehaviors” during every observation. These
misbehaviors included getting out of their seats to seek the
teachers’ help, meandering about the room as they waited for
their partners to finish their work, talking to themselves while
working, and putting their heads on their desks during lectures.
During a one 30-min observation, Nick, age 9, was called out a
total of seven times for not looking at the board, getting out of
his seat, and putting his head down on his desk. However, Nick
raised his hand multiple times to answer questions, but he was
never called upon to participate. He later told me,
I get bored waiting for the teacher to let me answer
questions. This girl in my class—whenever the teacher
asks us a question, she always know the answer first. I
think that makes her the smartest in the class. I don’t feel
like I am the smartest because I get into trouble a lot.
During another observation, Joseph, age 11, was instructed
several times to sit down and finish his work, when in fact, he
was waiting for his partner to complete his part of the
assignment before they could move on. “Working with a
partner that doesn’t cooperate with you or doesn’t think like
you gets frustrating,” admitted Joseph. Furthermore, Matthew,
age 11, was directed to return to his seat and complete his
assignment when he joined other students who were circled
together and talking. I observed that the other students had
barely touched their assignments yet were allowed to be
standing and talking to each other without being asked to
return to their seats. I asked the boys about these incidents
during their interviews, and they reported they lacked
academic challenge, were exasperated from working with peers
who the boys perceived to not be at their academic level, or
they finished with their work and needed creative explorations

of work or reading time. Matthew commented, “I prefer people
talk when I am working because it helps me focus and calms
me down for some reason.” As Matthew was talking, I paused
to recognize that it had never occurred to me that students,
especially gifted boys like him, whose minds can concentrate
on multiple things at once might prefer background noise to
enhance their focus on their studies. When it was too quiet in
his classroom, he admitted he talked to himself to help remain
focused on the assignments. Joseph confessed, “When the
teacher is talking about something I already know how to do, I
talk.” Participants also felt unfairly redirected because their
peers engaged in similar behaviors without receiving
consequences. Evan, age 10, argued, “Fairness does not
necessarily mean the same to a teacher as it does to a kid. How
is me making quiet noises to myself any different than
everyone else talking when they are not supposed to?” Not
seeing their behaviors more different than their peers’ actions
demonstrated their attunement to a sense of justice, or fairness,
and felt consistent expectations should apply across the board.
The boys felt their intelligence created a different standard for
expected behaviors than the expectations of other students in
the classroom. In other words, teachers’ behavioral
expectations of them were perceived to be as high as their
academic expectations. According to some studies, “Many boys
evaluate policy by its implementation rather than the fairness
of the behavior it asks for” (Cleveland, 2011, p. 92). Nine out
of
10 boys, however, felt their peers did not treat them any
51
differently because they were gifted. Sadly though, this was not

the case for Evan. Evan revealed,
I have pretty much zero friends who care. The only
people I can really talk to are always being jerks, and
they always find things to talk about themselves. Social
plains are different. (It’s hard to feel more mature than
your peers). We should do something about social plains
(where this student felt he fit in socially and
developmentally as compared to his peers within the
classroom environment). They suck. Other kids are not
socially on my level.
I concluded that Evan wanted to feel his teachers were
aware of the importance of social acceptance on the
development of self-perceptions. These gifted students were
keenly aware of their assumed place within the classroom
environment, and it was vital for them to feel included and
necessary within the classroom community. Reflecting on
behaviors like the ones mentioned sheds lights on the
importance of designing a rigorous and engaging curriculum,
making the gifted boys in this study feel more included rather
than excluded through constant redirection of misperceived
behaviors.
Gifted Boys’ Perceptions About Curriculum
Third, the participants recounted a missing instructional
component from their school experience—allowing them to
have an opinion when choosing relevant and engaging
instructional practices. All participants desired to be
academically challenged, and the selection of rigorous
curriculum related to their personal learning styles was essential
to their self-concepts Henry, age 8, acknowledged, “Sometimes
I
would like to learn more and have the teachers challenge us
more I like to work on projects and learn how things work.”

They craved opportunities to learn concepts using student-
driven instruction and investigative methods rather than deficit-
based approaches to pedagogy. Commonly used teaching
methods such as oral discussions, worksheets, textbook
assignments, and homework reinforcing rote memorization were
uninteresting to them. Ryan, age 9, stated, “I am usually ahead
of everybody in class and get bored waiting to learn something
new. I would actually like to skip a grade. Maybe that would
help.” The participants opposed the seemingly obvious
instructional methods geared toward “slower learners,” as stated
by Matthew, Evan, and Ryan, and rendered them pointless
because they already knew the material. The boys’ end-goals
were not to learn from instructional activities but to finish them
quickly so they could pursue independent learning time or
reading. “I would rather read, build objects, research topics on
the Internet, or pretty much do anything but worksheets,”
retorted Wyatt, age 9. The boys divulged feelings of boredom
because they felt teachers did not care enough about them to
put forth the effort to stimulate their minds academically.
Ninety
percent of the boys confessed a lack of hope that school could
be a motivating and exciting place to learn. Gavin believed his
educational experience should be a place that encouraged and
challenged him, but was losing hope that school would ever
meet his academic needs:
It’s human nature to survive. We have learned to survive
by being with other people.
School is not necessary because we can learn from
others. We were born with an education to some degree.
We know how to learn from each other and survive. As
long as we can survive and get along in the world, I
don’t see why we need a formal education.

Gavin did not like feeling this way but was not sure how to
tell teachers he needed more from them to make his
educational experience more worthwhile. All participants
expressed defeat when divulging they did not feel like they had
control over their academics. They could not recall a time when
they had been asked their opinions about their classwork or felt
their opinions mattered at all. “We have no control to change
what things we learn,” believed Evan. Not allowing students to
have instructional choices devalues them as human beings and
negates the purpose of education—to help all children reach
their academic and developmental potential. Gavin noted, “I’m
not generally a fan of school because of the way we have to
learn. We do not get to choose topics we want to learn about
and study in the ways that work for us.”
An example of such a classroom was the boys’ GT class. In
this class, students were allowed to talk to one another while
working. I observed the participants participate in this class and
compared their behaviors with the ones in the general
education classes. They smiled more and appeared more
relaxed when they were around other kids like them. They
were fully engaged in projects and inquiry-based learning.
During one observation, the fifth grade participants were
planning their upcoming GT field trip in which they were going
to take a public bus on a scenic tour of the popular places
within their city. All of the boys told me that they like being in
the GT class; Gavin indicated, “We are freer to explore our
interests and enjoy not having to spend time on concepts we
already know.” Wyatt reported that he enjoys attending this
class because “We get to build rockets. I like to learn how
things work.” In addition, Leo and Dustin expressed their love
of building things and enjoyed working with their hands and
said it kept them engaged in learning. Leo remarked, “We get to
make projects and do lots of fun stuff like coding and building
golf courses.” Similarly, Henry replied, “We get to create and
build things.”

Conclusively, educators lacked an understanding of how the
consideration personal learning preferences could have
enhanced their motivation for learning. It was not enough to be
considered gifted among their classmates. The boys possessed a
desire to learn at their own academic levels with input about
52
which instructional strategies engaged them, encouraged them
to achieve more, and valued them as students in the learning
community.
The analyses lead to discussion for instructional implications
that focuses on the importance of supporting gifted boys’
self-concepts through the curriculum and social aspects of the
classroom.
Discussions for Teachers
Analyzing my data through the lens of the Frame of
Reference theory explores gifted boys’ plights to feel equally
important to their peers and value their educational experiences
in elementary school (Cooper, 2012; Kanevsky, 2011). My
analysis suggests three key findings from this ethnographic
work. First, these participants desired their teachers to
understand that although they highly value their gifted
identities, their gifted identification does not exclude them from
experiencing some academic and social challenges. In some
cases, these challenges caused low self-perceptions because
participants compared their challenges with their peers’ abilitie s
to complete work with little effort (Coleman, 2001). Second, the

participants felt teachers misunderstood certain classroom
behaviors, influencing unfair treatment, as compared with peers
with similar behaviors. Third, the participants wished to have a
say about their assigned curriculum, thereby experiencing more
engagement, connection to learning, and feelings of value and
worth as highly capable students. Using the lens of the Frame
of Reference theory illuminates the understanding that gifted
boys’ self-perceptions as learners are influenced by their social
and emotional school experiences (Parker, Marsh, Lüdtke, &
Trautwein, 2013; Williams & Montgomery, 1995). Classrooms
should be affirming spaces that help them feel respected as
members or the learning community rather than devalued from
the educational process (Cleveland, 2011).
After the participants shared their thoughts and feelings about
school and themselves, I asked them was there something they
wished their teachers knew about them as students in their
classes. Their responses were of no surprise. Ryan quickly
answered, “I would want them to know that I am usually ahead
of everybody in class and can solve problems easily and prefer
to read.” Matthew responded similarly: “I want them to know
that we want more challenging things to do in class. But I don’t
really see that changing for next year. I just think they will treat
everyone the same way, as always, next year.” Five of the boys
wished that teachers knew that while they wanted more
activities that challenge their level of intellect, they also want
to
be treated as equals to their peers. In other words, the
participants wanted their behaviors to be judged for what they
might be representing: a need that is left to be met. As Evan
expressed, “It’s like my past follows me, and if we got into
trouble in third grade or some grade, then it follows me (to the
next grade), and I don’t get a fair chance.”
The participants’ unmet needs included the feelings of being
valued as academic learners through careful planning of lessons

that incorporate personal learning styles and high levels of
rigor.
Wyatt shared, “I like to create and build. I wish I could do that
more.”
Some teachers are trained to design lessons for students who
lack academic skills producing a deficit-based approach to
pedagogy that leads little room for gifted learners to be
challenged (Bristol, 2015; Kanevsky, 2011 Acee et al., 2010).
Rigorous academic expectations show gifted boys they are
valued
as exceptional learners (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Gifted boys
feel
a sense of pride and personal fulfillment in who they are as
individuals when they are being academically challenged. The
participants also needed teachers to connect the subject content
to their social and emotional needs. According to the American
Psychological Association (2017), being accepted by peers is
just
as important to gifted students as their high academic
achievement. Students like Evan and Joseph need teachers to
create safe classroom spaces for students to be themselves and
work with similar-minded peers during collaborative
assignments
(Saunders-Stewart, Walker, & Shore, 2013). Evan admitted,
Sometimes when I get stuck working on projects with
other people, it makes the work a lot harder than it has
to be. Everyone wants to talk or make fun of me because
I try to help them solve the problems.
Along those lines, Cleveland (2011) suggests that classrooms
need to be spaces that are affirming and helps boys feel
respected as members of the learning community, regardless of
their levels of intelligence.

With these findings in mind, I referred to The American
Psychological Association’s (2017) Top Principles from
Psychology
for PreK-12 Creative, Talented, and Gifted Students’ Teaching
and Learning from the Center for Psychology in Schools and
Education. This resource provides educational suggestions for
helping gifted students build healthy self-concepts as well as
information regarding rationales, methods, and implications for
how to address gifted students social, emotional, and learning
needs. For example, teachers may help their students develop a
positive growth mind-set by associating their successes with
effort rather than their intelligence, emphasize the significance
of
diverse perspectives about the curriculum, and “channel
enthusiasm into solving problems and avoid the tendency to see
highly creative students as disruptive” (American Psychological
Association, 2017, p. 19). This resource helps teachers
understand how gifted students perceive themselves as learners
within the classroom context and provides strategies for
teachers
to address their academic endeavors while maintaining support
for their gifted students’ unique personal needs. Principle 1
provides an overview of the influence of students’ self-
perceptions about their cognitive ability on their performance
(American Psychological Association, 2017). It explains that
when students have opportunities to foster healthy self-concepts
at school, they will experience academic and emotional growth
(American Psychological Association, 2017). The contents
include relevant and applicable ideas for teachers to consider
when teaching students of high-cognitive abilities. In addition,
53

this resource can support teachers by demonstrating how to
provide challenging curriculum, implement strategies that
promote creativity and discovery, and utilize their gifted
students’
high problem-solving skills within the classroom (American
Psychological Association, 2017).
Study Limitations
This research was conducted at one suburban elementary
school with 10 male students. These participants were, for the
most part, either White and/or not of Hispanic origin. Although
it did not appear as those background information or ethnicities
played a role in influencing the findings, subsequent studies
would support the generalizability of the findings by including
additional male students in more elementary school settings of
other ethnicities. As few prior studies include a direct focus on
the self-perceptions of young male learners, more studies about
boys’ self-perceptions are needed to further validate my
findings
(Preckel et al., 2015). The strengths and significance of this
study reside the participants’ voices about their schooling
experiences and their influence on self-perceptions. However,
as the findings rely on students’ perceptions, they cannot be
validated with sources such as achievement data or other school
reporting data. Again, additional studies similar in nature would
serve to strengthen the findings and support the importance of
understanding how students’ self-perceptions as learners can
have a critical influence on classroom pedagogy.
Conclusion
This study examines gifted boys’ school and self-
perceptions, positioning their perspectives with

contemporary studies (Bailey, 2011; Hamilton & Roberts,
2017; Händel et al., 2013; Preckel et al., 2015) on teaching
elementary gifted male students in public schools. These
students’ self-perspectives influenced their social and
emotional health. Analyzing observation field notes and
participant interviews through the Frame of Reference lens
illustrates how the participants’ self-perceptions as learners
were formed within their social, academic, and emotional
school contexts. Three findings emerged from my
ethnographic work. First, the participants wanted their
teachers to know that while they value their own gifted
identification, their high cognitive abilities do not exclude
them from experiencing academic and social challenges.
Second, the participants felt their classroom behaviors were
often misunderstood as insubordination, when actually they
represented neglected academic or social needs. Third, the
participants wished to have a voice about their assigned
curriculum, thus experiencing more engagement and
connection to learning. Analyses of these findings prompts
teachers to evaluate gifted boys’ self-perceptions as learners,
thereby helping them implement inclusive and rigorous
academic, social, and emotional pedagogy for these students.
This study suggests the importance for teachers to open their
minds to gifted boys’ self-perceptions as learners and to give
students opportunity to be heard. It is without questions that
teachers carry the responsibility to design state standards–
aligned curriculum. However, providing students with
opportunities to give input in meeting the required curriculum
is a critical one to consider (Lamont, 2012). Kanevsky (2011)
contends that students offer insightful information about
effective instructional practices when they participate with their
teachers in designing curriculum. Equally significant, gifted
students should feel valued and included in the curriculum that
incorporates personal learning preferences, high levels of rigor,

and maintains respect for individuality and the social plains that
exist among their peers. Noting the scarcity of similar studies
including elementary-age students who are interviewed and
given opportunities to provide personal reflections that
contribute to research (Pinxten et al., 2015), I propose that more
educational studies similar to this one should provide young
students opportunities to give input about their instructional,
social, and emotional needs at school.
Gavin brilliantly summarized his perspective by saying,
Being gifted means we’re born with a different learning
mindset. We naturally want to learn more because we
can comprehend more. But, we still want to be treated
like other kids in our class, and we want to know what
we say about what we are learning matters.
Gavin’s remark reminds us all never to forget that students
want to be children who are valued for who they are as unique
members of a classroom family.
Appendix
Individual Interview Questions
1. Describe yourself (Tell me about yourself, i.e., how are
you and what grade are you enrolled in). What kinds of
things do you like to do when you are not at school
(inside look into what interests students)?
2. What kinds of things do you not like to do when you are
at school?
3. What is your favorite subject? Why?
4. What are your favorite things to do at school? Why?
5. What are your least favorite things to do at school? Why?
6. How do you learn best?

7. What is your best memory of your school experience?
8. What challenges or struggles do you face at school, if any?
9. Do you like being in the gifted program? If so, what do
you like about it? If not, what do you not like about it?
10. What do you think it means to be considered gifted at
school?
11. If there was something you wished your teachers knew
about you as a student in their class, what would it be?
Why?
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
54
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Jessica Watts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-5965
References
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J.-I., Chu, H.-N. R., &
Kim, M., . . .
The Boredom Research Group. (2010). Academic boredom in

under-
and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational
Psychology,
35, 12-27. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002
American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in
Schools
and Education. (2017). Top 20 Principles from psychology for
preK-12
creative, talented, and gifted students’ teaching and learning.
Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/teaching-learning/top-
twenty-
principles.aspx
Bailey, C. L. (2011). An examination of the relationships
between ego
development, Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration, and
the
behavioral characteristics of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child
Quarterly,
55, 208-222. doi:10.1177/0016986211412180
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teacher’s conceptions
of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-
relevant dimensions. Gifted Children Quarterly, 60, 212-225.
doi:10.1177/0016986216647115
Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a
different
lens: Reflecting on a strength-based, talent-focused approach
for
twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 311-327.
doi:10.1177/0016986214547632
Bristol, T. J. (2015). Teaching boys: Towards a theory of

gender-relevant
pedagogy. Gender and Education, 27, 53-68.
doi:10.1080/09540253.20
14.986067
Cleveland, K. P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school.
Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Coleman, M. R. (2001). Surviving or thriving? 21 gifted boys
with learning
disabilities share their school stories. Gifted Child Today, 24,
56-63.
doi:10.4219/gct-2001-538
Cooper, M. E. (2012). Everything I ever wanted to learn about
teaching,
I learned from gifted boys. Gifted Child Today, 35, 171-178.
doi:10.1177/1076217512445991
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1998). Writing
ethnographic field notes.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Farrell, F. (2016). Learning to listen: Boys’ gender narratives —
Implications
for theory and practice. Education + Training, 58, 283-297.
doi:10.1108/ET-06-2015-0046
Gallagher, J. J. (2015). Peer acceptance of highly gifted
children in
elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38,
51-57.
doi:10.1177/0162353214565549
Hamilton, P., & Roberts, B. (2017). “Man-up, go and get an ice-

pack.”
Gendered stereotypes and binaries within the primary
classroom: A
thing of the past? Education 3 -13: International Journal of
Primary,
Elementary and Early Years of Education, 45, 122-134.
doi:10.1080/030
04279.2015.10598771
Händel, M., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2013). Student
perceptions of high-
achieving classmates. High Ability Studies, 24, 99-114.
doi:10.1080/1359
8139.2013.843139
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of
differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55,
279-299.
doi:10.1177/0016986211422098
Lamont, R. T. (2012). The fears and anxieties of gifted learners.
Gifted Child
Today, 35, 271-276. doi:10.1177/1076217512455479
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2012). School context and the
gender gap in
educational achievement. American Sociological Review, 77,
463-485.
doi:10.1177/0003122412440802
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous?
Trustworthiness
and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams
(Ed.),
Naturalistic evaluation (pp. 73-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept:
The marsh/
shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-
636.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2015). Talent
development as
a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38, 49-
59.
doi:10.1177/1076217514556531
Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U.
(2013). Differential
school contextual effects for math and English: Integrating the
big-fish-
little-pond effect and the internal/external frame of reference.
Learning
and Instruction, 23, 78-89.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.001
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the identification
and
assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment,
30, 3-9. doi:10.1177/0734289114228192
Pinxten, M., Wouters, S., Preckel, F., Niepel, C., De Fraine, B.,
&
Verschueren, K. (2015). The formation of academic self-concept
in
elementary education: A unifying model for external and
internal
comparisons. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 124-
132.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.003

Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S.
(2015). Gifted
and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations
related to
gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52,
1160-1184.
doi:10.3102/0002831215596413
Rentzsch, K., Schutz, A., & Schroder-Abe, M. (2011). Being
labeled
nerd: Factors that influence the social acceptance of high-
achieving
students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 143-168.
doi:10.180/00220970903292900
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2013).
How do
parents and teachers of gifted students perceive group work in
classrooms? Gifted and Talented International, 28, 99-109.
doi:10.1080/
15332276.2013.11678406
Shaalvik, E., & Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general
academic
self-concept: The internal/external frame of reference model
and
gender differences in self-concept structure. Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 82, 546-554.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-
concept:
Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational
Research,
46, 407-441. doi:10.3102/003465543046003407

Swiatek, M. A. (2004). Gifted students’ self-perceptions of
ability
in specific subject domains: Factor structure and relationship
with above-level test scores. Roeper Review, 27, 104-109.
doi:10.1080/027831905009554298
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Selecting instructional strategies
for gifted
learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36, 1-12. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/224044187?pq-
origsite=gscholar
Williams, J. E., & Montgomery, D. (1995). Using frame of
reference
theory to understand the self-concept of academically able
students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 400-409.
doi:10.1177/01623532950/800404
Bio
Jessica Watts is a graduate teaching assistant in the College of
Education, Health, and Aviation at Oklahoma State University.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-5965
https://search.proquest.com/docview/224044187?pq-
origsite=gscholar
https://search.proquest.com/docview/224044187?pq-
origsite=gscholar
Copyright of Gifted Child Today is the property of Sage
Publications Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for

individual use.
Annotations are the reader’s original notes about the document.
Each annotated bibliography consists of the following
components:
Title page in APA style 7.
Bibliographic citation of the text in APA style 7 for references,
font, spacing, and margins.
Three paragraphs that include the following:
A brief summary of the main points of the article to include the
main argument/position and methodology of the study.
2. A critical assessment of the article’s accuracy, relevance, and
quality. Consider the author’s expertise, potential bias, and
relevance to other points of view in the field.
3. Reflection of the usefulness of the article in learning about
the topic.
Annotations will be approximately 250 – 300 words in length.

BRIEF REPORTMasculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychos

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BRIEF REPORTMasculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychos

Similar to BRIEF REPORTMasculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychos (20)

More from VannaSchrader3

More from VannaSchrader3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BRIEF REPORTMasculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychos