The purpose of this study was to identify whether gifted adolescents' academic, general, and emotional stability self concepts would increase or decrease during time spent in a residential summer program for the gifted. Gender and previous summer program participation were also examined as potential moderators. Participants included 140 gifted adolescents enrolled in a 3-week summer program. Self concept was measured using the Self-Description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1990). Results were analyzed using a series of repeated measures ANOVAs. Application of the results, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbeelL. (2000). Single-gender grouping: Academic self-concept and student perception of learning environment in a public middle school (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3601.
2.
AbersonC. (1999). Low self-esteem and ingroup bias. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 17–28.
3.
AblardK. (1997). Self-perceptions and needs as a function of type of academic ability and gender. Roeper Review, 20, 100–115.
4.
AntunesC., & FontaineA. (2004). Adolescents' perceptions of their parents' attitudes towards academic performance: Their relation with academic performance, academic self-concept and global self-esteem. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 2, 203–220.
5.
BainS. K., & BellS. 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, 167–178.
6.
BrackenB. (1980). Comparison of self-attitudes of gifted children and children in a non-gifted normative group. Psychological Reports, 47, 715–718.
7.
BurgerJ. (1985). Temporal effects on attributions for academic performances and reflected-glory basking. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 330–336.
8.
ByrneB. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427–456.
9.
CialdiniR., & RichardsonK. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406–415.
10.
CialdiniR., BordenR., ThorneA., WalkerM., FreemanS., & SloanL. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.
11.
ColangeloN., KellyK., & SchrepferR. (1987). A comparison of gifted, general, and special learning needs students on academic and social self-concept. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 73–77.
12.
ColangeloN., & PflegerL. (1978). Academic self-concept of gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 1, 10–11.
13.
DavisJ. (1966). The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative deprivation to career decisions of college men. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 17–31.
14.
DixonF. (1998). Social and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 80–94.
15.
EckmanL. (1996). A program to improve self-concept development in preadolescent females. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 4702.
EriksonE. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
18.
EriksonE. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
19.
FeldhusenJ., & KolloffM. (1981). Me: A self-concept scale for gifted students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 319–323.
20.
FieldA. P. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage.
21.
GargR. (1992). Academic and nonacademic self-concepts: Influence of recent life-change experiences and demographic, social, and health variables. Psychological Reports, 70, 871–882.
22.
GilmanR., LaughlinJ., & HubnerE. (1999). Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire-II with an American sample. School Psychology International, 20, 300–307.
23.
HayI., ByrneM., & ButlerC. (2000). Evaluation of a conflict-resolution and problem-solving programme to enhance adolescents' self-concept. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 28, 101–113.
24.
HogeR., & RenzulliJ. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449–465.
25.
HubnerE., GilmanR., & LaughlinJ. (1999). A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality of children's well-being reports: Discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 46, 1–22.
KellyK., & ColangeloN. (1984). Academic and social self-concepts of gifted, general, and special students. Exceptional Children, 50, 551–554.
28.
KetchamB., & SnyderR. (1977). Self-attitudes of gifted students as measured by the Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale. Psychological Reports, 40, 111–116.
29.
KolloffP., & MooreA. (1989). Effects of summer programs on the self-concepts of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 268–276.
30.
KongC. (2000). Chinese students' self-concept: Structure, frame of reference, and the relation with academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Chinese University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 880.
31.
LehmanE., & ErdwinsC. (1981). Social and emotional adjustment of young intellectually gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 134–138.
32.
LerouxJ. (1988). Voices from the classroom: Academic and social self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 3–18.
33.
Manor-BullockR. (1994). Gifted adolescents: Social comparisons and changes in self-concept on entering a rigorous academic program in a residential environment (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 3638.
34.
MarshH. (1984). Self-concept: The application of a frame of reference model to explain paradoxical results. Australian Journal of Education, 28, 165–181.
35.
MarshH. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280–295.
36.
MarshH. (1990). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II: Manual. New South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney.
37.
MarshH. (1991). The failure of high-ability high schools to deliver academic benefits: The importance of academic self-concept and educational aspirations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 445–480.
38.
MarshH., ChessorD., CravenR., & RocheL. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319.
39.
MarshH., & CravenR. (2000, October). The pivotal role of frames of reference in academic self-concept formation: The “big-fish-little-pond” effect. Paper presented at the Inaugural Self-Concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre International Conference, Sydney, Australia.
40.
MarshH., & HauK. (2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26 country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364–376.
41.
MarshH., KongC., & HauK. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 337–349.
42.
MarshH., & ParkerJ. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213–231.
43.
MarshH., PluckerJ., & StockingV. (2001). The Self-Description Questionnaire-II and gifted students: Another look at Plucker, Taylor, Callahan, and Tomchin's (1997) “Mirror, mirror, on the wall.”Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 976–996.
MoonS., FeldhusenJ., & DillonD. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38–48.
46.
O'SuchK., TwylaG., & HavertapeJ. (1979). Group differences in self-concept among handicapped, normal, and gifted learners. The Humanist Educator, 18, 15–22.
47.
OlszewskiP., KuliekeM., & WillisG. (1987). Changes in the self-perceptions of gifted students who participate in rigorous academic programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 287–303.
48.
PluckerJ., TaylorV. J., CallahanC., & TomchinE. (1997). Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Reliability and validity evidence for the Self-Description Questionnaire-II with gifted students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 704–113.
49.
PyrytM., & MendaglioS. (1994). The multidimensional self-concept: A comparison of gifted and average-ability adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 299–305.
50.
RossA., & ParkerM. (1980). Academic and social self-concepts of the academically gifted. Exceptional Children, 47, 6–10.
51.
ShavelsonR. J., HubnerJ. J., & StantonG. C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441.
52.
StockingV., PorterL., GoldsteinD., & OpplerS. (1993, April). The self concept of talented adolescents in an intensive summer program: Implications for programming. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
53.
TomchinE., & CallahanC. (1996). Coping and self-concept. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 16–27.
54.
VanBoxtelH. W., & MönksF. J. (1992). General, social, and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 21, 169–186.
55.
VaughnV., FeldhusenJ., & AsherJ. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92–98.
56.
WannD., HamletM., WilsonT., & HodgesJ. (1995). Basking in reflected glory, cutting off reflected failure, and cutting off future failure: The importance of group identification. Social Behavior and Personality, 23, 377–388.
57.
WesterveltV., JohnsonD., WesterveltM., & MurrillS. (1998). Changes in self-concept and academic skills during a multimodal summer camp program. Annals of Dyslexia, 68, 191–212.
