Differences in Mechanisms of Social Interaction of Gifted Children Based on Peer Acceptance [Diferencias en mecanismos de interacción social en niños de altas capacidades en función de la aceptación social]

Pablo Hernández-Lastiri, África Borges, María Cadenas

Abstract


Abstract

Early relationships with equals are considered a relevant factor in people’s development. In order to study social interaction, Santoyo (1996, 2006) proposes the functional mechanisms of social effectiveness, social responsiveness, and reciprocity. To analyze and compare these mechanisms in the participants of the Comprehensive Program for High Abilities (CPHA) with the purpose of detecting possible differences between the students who are better considered by their equals and those who have less social acceptance. The sample was selected by a sociogram, and the social interaction was measured with the Observational Protocol for Interactions within the Classroom-OPINTEC, v.5 (Cadenas & Borges, 2016, 2017; Cadenas, Borges, & Falcón, 2013). The participants show effectiveness and correspondence, but they don’t show social reciprocity. No differences were observed between the most valued ones and the most rejected ones. Observation represents and appropriate methodology for the studying of social relations in natural settings in combination with other procedures. 

Resumen

Las relaciones tempranas con los iguales se consideran un factor relevante en el desarrollo de las personas. Para el estudio de la interacción social, Santoyo (1996, 2006) pro­pone los mecanismos funcionales de efectividad, corres­pondencia y reciprocidad social. Analizar y comparar los mecanismos que regulan la interacción social en alumnado participante del Programa Integral para Altas Capacidades (PIPAC) con el fin de detectar posibles diferencias entre aquellos mejor considerados por sus pares y los que pre­sentan una menor aceptación social. La muestra se selec­ciona mediante el sociograma y la interacción social se mide a través del instrumento de observación Protocolo de Observación de Interacción en el Aula-PINTA, v.5 (Cade­nas & Borges, 2016, 2017; Cadenas et al., 2013). Tanto los estudiantes focales más valorados como los más rechazados muestran patrones indicadores de pre­sencia de efectividad y correspondencia social, pero no re­ciprocidad social. No se observaron diferencias entre am­bos grupos. La observación representa una metodología adecuada para el estudio de relaciones sociales en ambien­tes naturales en combinación con otros procedimientos


Keywords


high ability; social interaction; observation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Almeida, L. S., Araújo, A. M., Sainz-Gómez, M., & Prieto, D. (2016). Challenges in the Identification of Giftedness: Issues Related to Psychological Assessment. Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 621–627. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259311

Anguera, M. T. (1990). Metodología Observacional. [Observational Methodology] In J., Arnau, M. T. Anguera, & J. Gómez Benito. Metodología de la investigación en ciencias del comportamiento [Methodology of Behavior Sciences Research] (pp. 125–236). Murcia, Spain: Universidad de Murcia.

Anguera, M. T., Blanco, A., & Losada, J. L. (2001). Diseños observacionales, cuestión clave en el proceso de la metodología observacional. [Observational Desgins, Key Question in Observational Methodology]. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 3(2), 135–160.

Anguera, M. T. & Hernández-Mendo, A. (2013). La metodología observacional en el ámbito del deporte. [Observational Methodology in Sport Field]. Revista de Ciencias del Deporte, 9(3), 135–160.

Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Observación de la interacción: introducción al análisis secuencial. [Observation of Interaction: Sequential Analysis Introduction]. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Morata, S.A

Bakeman R. & Quera V. (1995). Analyzing Interaction. Sequential Analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1996). Análisis de la interacción: Análisis secuencial con SDIS y GSEQ. [Analyzing interaction: Sequential Analysis with SDIS and GSEQ]. Madrid, Spain: Ra-Ma.

Behar, J. & Riba, C. (1993). Sesgos del observador y de la observación. [Observer and Observation Bias]. In M.T. Anguera (Ed.), Metodología observacional en la investigación psicológica (Vol.2, Fundamentación [Observational Methodology in the Psychological Research]. (pp. 11–148). Barcelona, Spain: PPU.

Blanco-Villaseñor, A. (1991). La teoría de la generalizabilidad aplicada a diseños observacionales [The Generalizability Theory Applied to Observational Designs]. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 17(3), 23–63. https://doi.org/10.5514/rmac.v17.i3.23338

Bokkina, E. I. (2016). Social Interaction of the Gifted Children in a Heterogeneous Environment. (Master’s Thesis). Nihmegen: Radboud University.

Borges, A. & Hernández-Jorge, C. (2006). La superdotación intelectual: algo más que un privilegio. [Intellectual Giftedness: Something more Tan a Privilege]. Acta Científica y Tecnológica, 10, 28–33.

Borges, A., Hernández-Jorge, C., & Rodríguez-Naveiras, E. (2011). Evidencias contra el mito de la inadaptación de las personas con altas capacidades intelectuales. [Evidences against the Maladjustment Myth of High Ability People]. Psicothema, 23(3), 362–367.

Briesch, A. M., Swaminathan, H., Welsh, M. & Chafouleas, S. M. (2014). Generalizability Theory: A Practical Guide to Study Design, Implementation and Interpretation. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.008

Cadenas, M. & Borges, Á. (2016). Procedimientos e instrumentos de evaluación para el estudio de la interacción social. Análisis de la interacción en aula [Procedures and Assessment Tools for the Study of Social Interaction. Analysis of Interaction in the Classroom]. Saarbrücken: eae-Editorial Académica Española.

Cadenas, M. & Borges, A. (2017). The Assessment of Change in Social Interaction through Observation. Acción Psicológica, 14(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.14.1

Cadenas, M., Borges, A., & Falcón, C. (2013). Análisis y depuración de un instrumento para la observación de la interacción dentro del aula [Analysis and Refinement of an Instrument for Observation of Interaction inside the Classroom]. Revista de Investigación y Divulgación en Psicología y Logopedia, 3(2),18–23.

Cadenas, M., Rodríguez, M., & Díaz, M. (2012). Los equipos de entrenamiento: una muestra para el estudio de los sesgos en la fiabilidad entre parejas de observadores [The Training Teams: A Sample for the Study of Bias between Pairs of Observers]. Revista de Investigación y Divulgación en Psicología y Logopedia, 2(2), 41–46.

Cairns, R. B. (1979). The analysis of Social Interactions: Methods, Issues, and Illustrations. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Calero, M. D., García-Martin, B. M., & Robles, M. A. (2011). Learning potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.025

Castellano, J., Hernández-Mendo, A., Gómez, P., Fontetxa, E., & Bueno, I. (2000). Sistema de codificación y análisis de la calidad del dato en el fútbol de rendimiento [System of coding and analysis of the data’s quality in performance football]- Psicothema, 12(4), 319–333.

Cavilla, D. (2017). Observation and Analysis of Three Gifted Underachievers in an Underserved, Urban High School Setting. Gifted Education International, 33(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429414568181

Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and Gifted Students: Implications of Theory and Research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 622–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21628

Cohen, J. (1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Coleman, L. J. (2014a). The Power of Specialized Educational Environments in the Development of Giftedness: The Need for Research on Social Context. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521520.

Coleman, L. (2014b). The Cognitive Map of a Master Teacher Conducting Discussions With Gifted Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521493

Coleman, L. & Cross, T. (2000). Socio-Emotional Development and the Personal Experience of Giftedness. En, K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, y R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 203–213). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. Nueva York, NY: Wiley.

De Jonge, M. (2016). Social interaction in enrichment classes: differences between popular and rejected gifted children. (Master’s Thesis). Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Flores, N. & Santoyo, C. (2009). Estabilidad y cambio de las relaciones sociales entre niños: análisis de mecanismos funcionales [Stability and Change of Social Relationships in Children: Functional Mechanisms Analysis]. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de Conducta, 3(1), 59–74.

Gabín, B., Camerino, O., Anguera, M. T., & Castañer, M. (2012). Lince: Multiplatform Sport Analysis Software. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4692– 4694.

Gagné, F. (2015). Academic Talent Development Programs: A Best Practices Model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9

Graffam, B. (2006). A Case Study of Teachers of Gifted Learners: Moving From Prescribed Practice to Described Practitioners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 119–131.

Hernández-Mendo, A., Ramos-Pérez, F., & Pastrana, J. L. (2012). SAGT: Programa informático para análisis de Teoría de la Generalizabilidad [SAGT: Computer Program for Generalizability Theory analysis]. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain: Safe Creative.

Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Social-emotional Characteristics of Gifted Accelerated and Non-Accelerated Students in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02047.x

Jen, E., Gentry, M., & Moon, S. M. (2017). High-Ability Students’ Perspectives on an Affective Curriculum in a Diverse University-Based Summer Residential Enrichment Program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722839

Lee, S., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2012). Academically Gifted Students' Perceived Interpersonal Competence and Peer Relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568

Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as Motivation for Gifted Students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621

Lloyd, B. P., Kennedy, C. H., & Yoder, P. J. (2013). Quantifying Contingent Relations from Direct Observation Data: Transitional Probability Comparison versus Yule’s Q. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(2), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.45

López, V. & Sotillo, M. (2009). Giftedness and Social Adjustment: Evidence Supporting the Resilience Approach in Spanish-Speaking Children and Adolescents. High Ability Studies, 20, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902860739

McCoach, B., Rambo, K. E., & Welsh, M. (2013). Assessing the Growth of the Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212463873

Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of Effective Teachers of Gifted Students: Teacher Background and Personality Styles of Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700404

Neihart, M. (2007). The Socioaffective Impact of Acceleration and Ability Grouping: Recommendations for Best Practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306319

Netz, H. (2014). Gifted Conversations: Discursive Patterns in Gifted Classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214523312

Plucker, J. A. & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: Status of the Field and Considerations for the Future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390–406. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0014402914527244

Reis, S. & Renzulli, J. (2010). Is there is Still a Need for Gifted Education? An Examination of Current Research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (2003). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Developing Creative and Productive Giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 184–203). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Robinson, N. M. (2008). The Social World of Gifted Children and Youth. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices (pp. 33–51). New York, NY: Springer.

Rodríguez, A. & Morera, M. D. (2001). El sociograma: estudio de las relaciones informales en las organizaciones [The Sociogram: Informal Relationships Study in Organizations]. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.

Rodríguez-Dorta, M. & Borges, A. (2016). Optimización y eficiencia en el análisis de datos en metodología observacional [Data Analysis Optimization and Efficiency in Observational Methodology]. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada, 21(1), 1–15.

Rodríguez-Dorta, M. & Borges, A. (2017). Behavioral Patterns in Special Education. Good Teaching Practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(631), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00631

Rodríguez-Naveiras, E. (2011). PROFUNDO: Un instrumento para la evaluación de proceso de un programa de altas capacidades [PROFUNDO: An Instrument for Process Assessment of a High Ability Program]. (Doctoral Thesis), Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna.

Santoyo, C. (1994a). Contexto e interacción social: bases conceptuales y metodológicas [Context and Social Interaction: Conceptual and Methodological Basics]. Barcelona, Spain: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias, S.A.

Santoyo, C. (1994b). Sociometría conductual: el diseño de mapas socioconductuales. [Behavioral Sociometry: The Design of Sociobehavioral Maps]. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de Conducta, 20(2), 183–205.

Santoyo, C. (1996). Behavioral Assessment of Social Interactions in Natural Settings. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 124–131.

Santoyo, C. (2006). La ecología social de la cotidianeidad en la escuela: Redes sociales y mecanismos funcionales [Social Ecology of Everyday Nature at School: Social Networks and Functional Mechanisms]. In C. Santoyo y C. Espinosa (Eds.), Desarrollo e interacción social: Teoría y métodos de investigación en contexto [Development and Social Interaction: Theory and Researching Methods in Context] (pp.113–150). México: UNAM/CONACyT.

Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of Giftedness: A Triarchic Analysis. Roeper Review, 22, 231–235.

Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of Gifted Students for Identification Purposes: New techniques for a new Millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003

Stoeger, H. & Ziegler, A. (2010). Do Pupils with Differing Cognitive Abilities Benefit Similarly from a Self- Regulated Learning Training Program? Gifted Education International, 26, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600113

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrel, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1529100611418056

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A Psychosocial Approach. In R. J. Sternberg y J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp.21–52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). Affective Curriculum and Instruction for Gifted Learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska, T. L. Cross, & F. R. Olenchak (Ed.), Social-Emotional Curriculum, with Gifted and Talented Students (pp. 113–132). Texas: Prufrock Press.

Volpe, R. J., Briesch, A. M., & Gadow, K. D. (2011). The Efficiency of Behavior Rating Scales to Assess Inattentive-Overactive and Oppositional-Defiant Behaviors: Applying Generalizability Theory to Streamline Assessment. Journal of School Psychology, 49,131–155.

Westberg, K., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The Classroom Practices Observation Study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 120–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329301600204

Ziegler, A. & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a Systemic Theory of Gifted Education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2012.679085




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.16.1.22169

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Comments on this article

View all comments


Copyright (c) 2019 Faculty of Psychology. Applied Psychology Service (UNED)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


Attribution-NonCommercial  (CC BY-NC)This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

 

Accion Psicologica

Applied Psychology Service (SPA), Faculty of Psychology (UNED).

C/ Juan del Rosal nº 10 28040 Madrid.

email: accionpsicologica@psi.uned.es

eISSN: 2255-1271