South Korean pre-service primary school teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education

Abstract

This study explores South Korean pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education. Qualitative focus group interviews were conducted with 13 South Korean undergraduates who were in their final year of a primary education. Analysis of the interviews revealed that culture was a major factor that had affected the pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education. Even though the participants agreed with the necessity of gifted education to meet gifted students’ distinctive intellectual and emotional needs, they tended to have negative attitudes towards the gifted education in South Korea because of the highly competitive educational atmosphere. The South Korean pre-service teachers admitted that taking a gifted education course could be somewhat helpful but not enough. They suggested that there should be more elective gifted education course offerings and that the current compulsory special education courses should devote more time and space to gifted education.

Keywords

South Korea gifted education teacher education

Introduction

Teacher attitudes

Teacher attitudes is an important concept in comprehending teachers’ thoughts, teaching styles, and classroom management approaches (Sieberer-Nagler, 2016). Early studies on teacher attitudes in 1950’s and 1960’s focused on teachers’ affective attitudes such as democratic and authoritarian attitudes and their influence on students (Kirk, 2019). With the shifts in research paradigms to cognitive-oriented paradigms, the relationship between teacher education and teacher attitudes has received some attention (Tsui, 2011). Research has demonstrated that the impact of a positive relationship between a teacher’s education and their positive attitudes towards teaching and students (Baan et al., 2020) and how their attitudes, in turn, influences their students’ emotions, behaviour, and academic outcomes (Blazar & Kraft, 2017).

Teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students

Literature has identified that both in-service and pre-service teachers hold misconceptions on gifted students. A fair number of teachers regard gifted education as elitism (Akgül, 2021) or show indifferent attitudes towards gifted education (Fraser-Seeto et al., 2015). The teachers’ misunderstanding of gifted students can negatively affect their attitude towards gifted students which in turn influences gifted students’ emotion and academic outcomes (Matheis et al., 2017).

Importance of teacher training in gifted education

Teacher education, such as undergraduate coursework in gifted education for pre-service teachers, has been shown to be effective in positively impacting teacher attitudes towards gifted students (Lassig, 2015). Various studies have shown that participating in education focused on teaching students who are gifted can help pre-service teachers better understand gifted students. From 2008 to 2014, Plunkett and Kronborg (2021) surveyed 588 pre-service teachers before and after they had taken the gifted education course at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, to identify the effect of the course on the future educators’ perception of gifted education. The findings showed a strong positive development in opinions related to gifted education.

Problems of teacher training in gifted education in South Korea

Despite the research findings of the importance of teacher training in gifted education when identifying or providing for gifted students, teacher training in gifted education in South Korea has been in decline since 2013. In 2013, the number of teachers of gifted students in South Korea was 26,814 but had decreased to 24,186 by 2019 (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2019). This represents a 9.8% decline in numbers. This is in line with the budget assigned to teacher training in gifted education in Gyeonggi province, which dropped from 271,460,000 Korean Won in 2013 to 62,580,000 Won in 2017, a 77% decline (Gyeonggido Office of Education, 2013, 2017). Further, there are only a limited number of teacher training programs and institutions providing teacher education in gifted education (Choe, 2016; Choe, 2016) and the effect of this neglect of teacher education in gifted education can negatively affect teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students (Seo, 2014).

The decreased budget allocated to teacher training in gifted education could be related to the insufficient number of teacher training programs with courses in gifted education. Currently, none of the universities in South Korea that offer a bachelor’s degree in primary education provide a compulsory course in gifted education. A few offer an elective course in gifted education, while other courses offer content embedded within a special education course (Choe, 2016). Despite the positive effects that initial teacher education can have on beginning teachers’ attitudes towards students (Cheng et al., 2012), it is unclear what effect the training or lack thereof has on South Korean pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students. It is also unknown how effective the training is, and what affects their attitudes. Therefore, exploring the opinions of South Korean pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and the effect of gifted education coursework on pre-service teachers is worthwhile, especially when the provision of initial education may be lacking.

Research questions

The aims of the study were to explore South Korean pre-service primary school teacher attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education, and to seek their opinions about current gifted education and initial teacher education in South Korea. In order to achieve the aims, this study was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1

How do South Korean pre-service teachers perceive gifted education in South Korea?

RQ2

How do South Korean pre-service teachers perceive gifted students?

RQ3

What are the perceptions of South Korean pre-service teachers about current initial teacher education in gifted education?

Method

The study reported here was the qualitative part of a mixed-methods study that the first author conducted as part of her PhD thesis. After receiving ethics approval for the study from the institution the researcher was affiliated with and the Korea National Institution for Bioethics Policy, 13 universities that offered a Primary Education bachelor’s degree program in South Korea were invited to take a survey. The five universities (University A, B, C, D, and E) who provided institutional consent for the survey were invited to participate in the qualitative interviews and three of them (University A, B, and D) consented and the administration office of the three universities distributed an e-mail invitation to fourth-year students who majored in primary education.

Those who contacted the researcher were sent the Participant Information Statement and Consent Form (PISCF) directly via e-mail. Thirteen students provided their consent. The researcher conducted three focus group interviews, with eight female students (62%) and five male students (38%). The age of focus group interview participants ranged from 22 to 28 years. Their average age was 23.2 years. All interviewees were in their final year and had completed eight or nine weeks of practicum. See Table 1 for participant demographics and participant codes.

Table 1.

Focus-group interview information of participants (N = 13).

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

Note: F= Female, M= Male; University D did not offer any gifted education course.

The researcher conducted three focus group interviews with five participants in one group and four participants in each of the other two groups. Each group of interviewees was asked to answer around seven semi-structured interview questions related to the research questions. For example, “How efficacious do you feel about teaching gifted students?” The duration of each focus group session was 85 minutes on average. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, with the participants’ consent, for data analysis purposes.

Data analysis

Deductive content analysis was adopted for coding. The researcher ensured the trustworthiness of the data interpretations via member-checking and various triangulation methods, including checking coding analysis with the second author. Any disagreements were resolved via discussion.

Deductive content analysis

Qualitative content analysis is a method that classifies the data systematically via coding and identifies themes or patterns (Moretti et al., 2011). There are two types of content analysis method: inductive and deductive content analysis. The categories in inductive content analysis come directly from the raw data (Moretti et al., 2011). On the other hand, deductive content analysis uses preconceived categories and researchers analyse the data according to previously formulated categories (Kyngäs & Kaakinen, 2019). The latter method is considered especially useful when testing existing theories or hypotheses (Moretti et al., 2011).

In the deductive content analysis coding, a researcher develops structured analysis matrices according to relevant research or a theory (Kyngäs & Kaakinen, 2019). In the initial stage of coding process, the researcher generated structured matrices with three-phased categories: theme, category, and sub-category. The themes were extracted from interview questions and the categories were derived from the results of quantitative survey or relevant research results. Even before conducting interviews and coding, some of the sub-categories were expected according to the results of the survey. Some of categories and sub-categories were added if the answers of the participants did not fit any pre-determined categories or the answers were from follow-up questions.

Results

Data analysis yielded seven themes, 25 categories, and 70 subcategories. The results of the data analysis are reported below.

South Korean pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education

In the focus-group interviews, most of the pre-service teachers agreed with the need for gifted education. However, majority of the interviewees were concerned about the current gifted education situation in South Korea. Many of the 13 pre-service teachers acknowledged the need for special education for gifted students because of their different intellectual and emotional needs. Seven out of 13 interviewees voiced that gifted students should be supported so they can fully exert their potential:

I believe we need to nurture those who have gifts so they can grow more… the notion ‘they will be fine without help, so let’s use this budget for gifted education for others’, it doesn’t make sense. (C3)

Three of the remaining six showed supportive attitudes towards gifted education in different ways. A2 supported compulsory gifted education course offering for pre-service teachers, D4 had positive views on gifted education based on her personal experience as a gifted education program recipient when young, and D5 insisted gifted education must be given to a larger number of students. The others (A1, D1, and D3) did not show any clear opinions about the need for gifted education.

South Korean pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards gifted education in South Korea

Unlike their supportive attitudes towards gifted education, participants voiced concerns about gifted education and education in general in South Korea. The pre-service teachers had two main concerns: that gifted education is only used as a means for university entrance or a higher level of education, and that gifted students’ emotional needs are often neglected.

Most of the participants strongly agreed that gifted education in South Korea does not function well in meeting the intellectual and emotional needs of gifted students. The participants often used the words ‘competitive’, ‘misused’, ‘means’, and ‘forced’. According to the participants, gifted education in Korea is now used solely as a means for better educational opportunities, and many Korean students are often forced to study hard by their parents or society. D4, who had participated in a gifted education program herself, admitted that there were many students who attended the program because it was good for their future education applications. A1 had the same opinion:

Gifted education must be given for the gifted to meet their intellectual curiosity, but gifted education now… has become like… a path for a success or proof to be used when they apply for a well-known high school, so gifted students are not passionate about learning, they just attend to get the certificate. (A1)

The problem of the phenomenon is that many students get extra private education, called ‘Hagwon’ in Korean, just to get into gifted programs, which potentially could unfairly deprive other gifted students of the opportunity to attend the programs:

Gifted education is not given to those who need it, but the problem is, we call those who get this extra private education for getting into gifted education program. (A4)

Many pre-service teachers stressed that the pressure placed on gifted students to excel academically results in the negligence of their mental health. A4 confessed his family’s expectations had been too high. Two other participants shared stories of family members who were gifted and experienced enormous pressure from their parents and society:

My brother attends a gifted high school, leaves home at 11am (on weekends and school holidays), and comes back at 11:30 pm. So, I asked him ‘how many Hagwons do you go to?’ And he says 3? 4? And he adds that the number is less than the average. There are some guys who go to 10 Hagwons or 4 Hagwons only for math. My brother says, ‘you can’t survive otherwise’ (C3)

C4 pointed out that such phenomenon is not only a problem for the gifted students, but also a social loss. She believed the phenomena of people using gifted education as a means to an end and gifted students’ emotional needs being neglected essentially was creating and reinforcing the notion of ‘elitism’. C2 also was concerned that under such pressure, Korean gifted students lose their autonomy and identity.

To sum up, even though most of the 13 pre-service teachers agreed that the aim of gifted education to meet gifted students’ distinctive intellectual and emotional needs, they tended to have negative attitudes towards the current gifted education situation in South Korea because it was not functioning well as per its original purpose of nurturing gifted students’ potential.

South Korean pre-service teachers’ opinions about initial teacher education in gifted education

Gifted education covered by special education course

A special education course is compulsory for acquiring a teacher qualification at any school level in South Korea (Detailed Criterion for Teacher Qualification, 2019). However, none of the universities offering a bachelor’s degree in primary education provide a compulsory gifted education course (Choe, 2016). University D did not even offer an elective gifted education course. Except for one participant from university C, the other 12 focus group interviewees had no opportunity to take a gifted education course; the only time for them to encounter gifted education during lectures was when gifted education was mentioned during the special education course or other education courses. The researcher asked the 13 pre-service teachers questions about gifted education covered in the other courses they had taken.

Twelve out of 13 participants answered that the special education course included gifted education, but barely covered it. Pre-service teachers from University D who took the course in Semester 2 confessed that they had attended the special education lecture only three or four times. Unlike other universities, University D offered their students the special education course during their fourth year, when the students are busy preparing for the National Teacher Exam. The participants said the university offered the course over five weeks, even though it was scheduled as a 15-week course because for those who were concerned about this high stakes exam, special education or gifted education was not their priority.

Answers from those who attended the 15-week-long special education course were the same; gifted education was not covered enough. They answered, “really little”, “rarely covered”, “briefly mentioned”, “small part of the whole course” or “not at all”. When asked what subjects were covered by the special education course, the participants answered the lecturer mainly had covered education for students with disabilities. Some of them answered the lecturer did not cover gifted education at all:

I did not learn about gifted education at all from the special education course. (D4)

I remember there was a chapter about gifted education in the textbook, but the lecturer did not cover it. (A4)

According to the Teacher Qualification Test Act (Detailed Criterion for Teacher Qualification, 2019), which applies to all of the pre-service teachers who started their degree from 2009 onwards, taking a special education course is compulsory for pre-service teachers to acquire teacher qualification. Further, Article 6, Clause 2 of Detailed Criterion for Teacher Qualification for Pre-school and Primary, Secondary, and Special School states “Special education courses must include a ‘gifted education’ chapter in the syllabus” (Detailed Criterion for Teacher Qualification, 2019). Despite the South Korean law, the interview participants confirmed that the special education course they had taken or taught never or barely included gifted education content.

Opinions about gifted education courses

Even though most of the focus group interview participants had not taken a gifted education course because of limited course offerings, they had various opinions about gifted education coursework. The pre-service teachers shared their views on the current gifted education course and offered suggestions for gifted education courses in South Korea. Among the focus group interview participants, C3 was the only one who had taken a gifted education course, Math Education for Underachieving Gifted Students. She shared her disappointment in the course; the lecturer did not clearly indicate who gifted students are or how to teach them. C3 assumed that the lecturer had not been sure about the traits of gifted students and how to teach them because gifted education was not the lecturer’s specialty “As far as I know, the lecturer majored in math education.”

When the researcher contacted University C about the interviews, they answered, “If the number is too small, we do not open the course. Also, it will be taught by a different external lecturer next time”. A look through University C’s website revealed that the course was not even offered in 2017. To summarise, student learning in University C’s gifted course was inconsistent because of the change of lecturer every year, and sometimes not being offered at all.

In contrast, University D did not even offer an elective gifted education course. D4 felt that University D should offer at least one elective gifted education course, so the students have an option. Even though University A offers an elective course called ‘science gifted education’ every semester, the course was capped at less than 30, so only a small number of students could take a gifted education course. In conclusion, limited numbers of South Korean pre-service primary teachers in 2019 had taken a gifted education course and even those who had taken a course were not satisfied with it because the lecturer was not a specialist in gifted education.

Suggestions for gifted education coursework

When asked what subjects a gifted education course should cover, nine out of 13 pre-service teachers provided an answer. The students wished to know more about practical teaching methods rather than theoretical aspects of teaching; they wanted to know about how to identify gifted students, traits of gifted students, actual cases of gifted students and their education, how to deal with gifted students’ parents, and things that teachers can do in the classroom and what gifted centres can do. A3 explained why she thought teachers should know about the traits of gifted students:

I believe there are traits of gifted students that are distinctive from others. So, I hope the course covers those. Let’s say a gifted student behaves in a certain way which came from his/her high intelligence and if the teacher doesn’t know this then they wouldn’t understand the student. If the teacher knows then they will understand the student … and it’s easier for the teacher to guide the student.

When asked whether a gifted education course should be compulsory or elective, of the 10 participants who answered, two answered ‘compulsory’, five chose ‘elective’, and the other three had some other suggestions. Two of five who chose ‘elective’ also had other suggestions. C2 and D5 wished a course on gifted education was offered as a compulsory course because they felt that it is very important for all teachers, especially novice teachers, to identify and teach gifted students. A3 also agreed that a gifted education course for inexperienced teachers is needed. However, she added that gifted students are not the only type of student that teachers meet in the classroom. Thus, she clarified that she was supportive of a compulsory course only if it also covers inclusive education and education for students from other economic or cultural backgrounds.

Among those who thought a gifted education course should be elective, A4 and D1 admitted that gifted education is needed but they believed the other courses are more important than a gifted education course. D1 believed that courses such as educational psychology or educational technology were more important than gifted education, and that was why those courses were compulsory. On the other hand, D3 argued that it is inefficient to educate all pre-service teachers about teaching students who require gifted education, as they comprise less than two percent of total student population. Also, the reason D2 was not supportive of a compulsory gifted education course was because he believed that gifted students are easy to teach:

I also don’t think that having a compulsory gifted education course is a good idea. Because… Honestly, I have never met an in-service teacher saying, ‘I’m stressed because of a gifted student.’

Five pre-service teachers suggested alternatives other than just choosing between the compulsory or elective course option; they suggested that compulsory special education courses or other subject courses can provide more content on gifted education, or more elective gifted education courses can be offered. A4 described specifically what portion of the special education course should cover gifted education: “up to 20%, at least for two to three weeks out of 15 weeks”. Also, D4 suggested that other subject courses should cover gifted education because gifted students are gifted in various subjects such as math, science, art, sports, etc. A3 agreed with the idea of the special education course covering more gifted education and added that it would be better if more elective gifted education courses were offered too:

Once students learn about gifted education and gifted students from the expanded special education course, there will be more students who become interested in learning more about gifted education then there should be more options for those.

Lastly, some interviewees stressed that the lecturer of a gifted education course has to be knowledgeable and experienced in gifted education. C3, who was the only one who had taken a gifted education course strongly recommended that universities need to invite or hire lecturers who are experts in the gifted education field. C1 agreed with C3 and added that it is better for pre-service teachers to learn from those with experience in teaching gifted students, such as those who have worked at a gifted education centre; so they can learn more about practical strategies in teaching gifted students. Other interviewees also expressed their needs to have a practicum experience at a gifted education centre:

Having an elective course is needed but I’d rather suggest going to a gifted centre and we teach gifted students and learn how they do that there as a part of practicum. Students at our uni go to a special school for students with disabilities. It’s compulsory, all of us go. So, something like this would be nice. (D3)

In conclusion, the majority of the pre-service teacher interviewees acknowledged the importance of gifted education, however, they had diverse opinions about the need for a compulsory gifted education course. Some were supportive of a compulsory course while others suggested existing courses should cover gifted education more than they do now, or that electives in gifted education be expanded. They also wanted a gifted education course to focus more on practical teaching and to be taught by professionals in the field.

Discussion

The possible reasons for the 13 South Korean pre-service teachers’ supportive attitudes towards the needs of gifted education could be related to culture. With fast socio-economic development in the 21st century, the aims of gifted education in Asian countries have been not only meeting individual students’ needs but also managing human resources with prospects for the nation (Chan, 2018; Dai & Kuo, 2016). The purposes of gifted education in South Korea are stated by law as, “developing individuals’ innate potential, helping individuals’ self-realisation, and helping individuals contribute to the society and nation (Promotion of Education for the Gifted and Talented Act, 2017).” Thus, it is possible that gifted education has been considered as education for individuals and their nations in many Asian countries rather than elitism. In fact, three pre-service teachers out of 13 focus group interviewees of this study, and one out of seven gifted education lecturers mentioned that one of the aims of gifted education is ‘managing human resources with prospects for the nation’.

A positive influence of taking a gifted education course on pre-service teachers has been confirmed in the literature. Plunkett and Kronborg (2021) examined 588 Australian pre-service teachers’ attitude changes after taking a gifted education course using the Opinions about Gifted Students and their Education Scale. From the survey results, the pre-service teachers appeared more supportive of gifted students and their education, less likely to see gifted education as elitism, more likely to regard gifted students as the value of society, understood challenges of gifted students better, and more positive about ability grouping and acceleration after taking the gifted education course. Many of the pre-service teachers wrote in their reflective journals that they had not understood gifted students fully before taking the course and their perception about giftedness had now been broadened.

In addition to taking a gifted education course, the pre-service teachers interviewed in this study agreed that it would be better if pre-service teachers could take a gifted education course where they were offered the opportunity to meet and teach gifted students. This combination has been reported by pre-service teachers to be helpful in gaining confidence in teaching gifted students but also to understand gifted students’ needs and traits of gifted students (Bangel et al., 2010).

In conclusion, a gifted education course can positively affect pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards gifted students and gifted education and could be more effective when students are provided with the opportunity to teach gifted students. By undertaking a gifted education course, pre-service teachers can learn about the needs of gifted students and differentiation of curriculum, understand the challenges gifted students might encounter, and learn how to teach them. The pre-service teachers could then apply what they learned if an opportunity was given.

Contribution to the literature

In this study, there are two main contributions to the literature: a) The importance of initial teacher education in the gifted education field was confirmed and b) impacts of culture on pre-service teachers’ views were identified. The implications make the these contributions not only more reliable in the sense that the importance of initial teacher education is supported by other literature but also original in its content, as the impacts of culture on pre-service teachers have barely been reported in other studies.

Importance of initial teacher education

There have been many studies about the positive effect of initial teacher education on pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards students (Lautenbach & Heyder, 2019; Sharma & Sokal, 2015; Swain et al., 2012). Several of the focus group interviewees related their lack of confidence in teaching gifted students to their limited exposure to information on teaching gifted students, for example not being able to take a course on gifted education. Thus, it is meaningful that the effect of initial teacher education in gifted education was identified in the study, which implies that the same result could be found in similar studies in gifted education or in other countries.

Impacts of culture on pre-service teachers

There have been a few studies about the impact of culture on teachers in the literature. Laine et al. (2019) reviewed the literature about the impacts of Finnish culture on education in Finland, including teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education. Based on their findings, Laine et al. (2019) argued that there is still more emphasis on social equality than gifted education in Finland. In contrast, the South Korean pre-service teachers in the study were worried about too much attention on gifted students and the competitive educational atmosphere in South Korea. In addition to the study by Laine et al. (2019), this study contributes to the scarce literature on the cultural impact on teachers’ views on gifted students and their education.

Even though the focus group interviewees were also supportive of the needs of gifted education, most of the interviewees were negative about the current state of gifted education in South Korea. They related their negative attitudes to the competitive educational atmosphere in South Korea, which would often lead to pressure to excel from parents or society with the resultant neglect of the gifted students’ emotional needs. The interviewees mentioned that competitive parents often use gifted education as a path for success, and many students are forced to get extra private education just for getting into a gifted education program. Some pre-service teachers added that the excessive pressure on gifted students at an early age would be harmful to their mental health and academic achievement. For this reason, the pre-service teacher interviewees were strongly opposed to acceleration as well. Therefore, the study results suggested that culture can be one of the factors affecting pre-service teachers’ perceptions other than initial teacher education or their personal experience.

Implications for practice

The results of this study indicated that initial teacher education in South Korea does not provide enough coursework in gifted education. Also, they indicated that practical teaching experience is essential in enhancing pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching and for pre-service teachers to have supportive views on gifted students and gifted education.

Lack of initial teacher education in gifted education

It was discovered that gifted education coursework offerings or opportunities for pre-service teachers to teach gifted students were very limited. One of the three universities that the 13 interviewees from did not offer a gifted education course, and the other two universities offered only few elective gifted education courses.

Although law dictates that a compulsory special education course should include gifted education, the interview participants confirmed that the special education course barely covered gifted education. The lack of elective gifted education course offerings and the fact that gifted education is not covered enough during the compulsory special education course in South Korea suggest that more offerings pertaining to gifted education should be offered in initial teacher education programs in South Korea.

Also, the pre-service interviewees stressed the importance of actual teaching experience with gifted students plus gifted education coursework. In fact, the positive effect of the combination of coursework and actual teaching experience on pre-service teachers has been identified in many other studies (Choy et al., 2014; Sokal et al., 2013; Taliaferro et al., 2015). In conclusion, it is suggested from this study and other literature that more teaching experience in gifted education is needed for pre-service teachers’ positive attitude changes towards gifted students and gifted education.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Therese M Cumming

Author Biographies

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

Therese M. Cumming is a Professor of Special Education at UNSW Sydney and has a background in special education and teacher preparation. Her research interests are special education, emotional and behavioural disabilities, transitions, universal design for learning and mobile technology as assistive technology.

Sue O’Neill Sue is a Senior Lecturer in Special Education with the UNSW School of Education. Her research interests focus on both teacher preparation and self-efficacy in classroom and behaviour management practices and transitions in the lives of youth with special or complex needs.

References

Akgül

(2021). Teachers’ metaphors and views about gifted students and their education. Gifted Education International, 37(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421988927

Baan

Gaikhorst

Volman

(2020). Stimulating teachers’ inquiring attitude in academic and professional teacher education programmes. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1693994

Bangel

N. J.

Moon

S. M.

Capobianco

B. M.

(2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions and experience in a gifted education training model. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986210369257

Blazar

Kraft

M. A.

(2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260

Chan

D. W.

(2018). Gifted education in asia. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Nicpon

M. F.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

(Eds.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 71–84). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-005

Cheng

M. M. H.

Tang

S. Y. F.

Cheng

A. Y. N.

(2012). Practicalising theoretical knowledge in student teachers’ professional learning in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.008

Choe

H. S

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

Choy

Wong

A. F. L.

Goh

K. C.

Low

E. L.

(2014). Practicum experience: Pre-service teachers’ self-perception of their professional growth. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(5), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.791552

Dai

D. Y.

Kuo

C. C.

(2016). Gifted education in asia: Problems and prospects. In Dai

D. Y.

Kuo

C. C.

(Eds.). Information Age Publishing.

10.

Detailed Criterion for Teacher Qualification (2019). 2019-182 S.K.C. § 6. http://www.law.go.kr/admRulLsInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000178832#AJAX

11.

Fraser-Seeto

K. T

Howard

S. J.

Woodcock

(2015). An investigation of teachers’ awareness and willingness to engage with a self-directed professional development package on gifted and talented education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 1–14. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol40/iss1/1/

12.

Gyeonggido Office of Education (2013). Gyeonggido education annual revenue and expenditure. [Data file] http://www.goe.go.kr/edu/bbs/selectBbsView_new.do?menuId=320151216145314&bbsMasterId=BBSMSTR_000000000171&bbsId=81165&pageIndex=1&searchCategory=&top_m=&left_m=&lm_1=&schKey=TITLE&schVal=

13.

Gyeonggido Office of Education . (2017). Gyeonggido education annual revenue and expenditure [Data file]. http://www.goe.go.kr/edu/bbs/selectBbsView_new.do?menuId=320151216145314&bbsMasterId=BBSMSTR_000000000171&bbsId=305528&pageIndex=1&searchCategory=&top_m=&left_m=&lm_1=&schKey=TITLE&schVal=

14.

Kirk

L. E.

(2019). Effects of primary grade literacy field experiences on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy: A causal-comparative study. [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/2140

15.

Korean Educational Development Institute (2019). Gifted education database. [Data file] https://ged.kedi.re.kr/stss/main.do#download

16.

Kyngäs

Kaakinen

(2019). Deductive content analysis. In Kyngäs

Kaakinen

Kääriäinen

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

17.

Laine

Hotulainen

Tirri

(2019). Finnish elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education. Roeper Review, 41(2), 76–87. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/02783193.2019.1592794

18.

Lassig

(2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(2), 6–16. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=568682413215995;res=IELAPA

19.

Lautenbach

Heyder

(2019). Changing attitudes to inclusion in pre-service teacher education: A systematic review. Educational Research, 61(2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1596035

20.

Matheis

Kronborg

Schmitt

Preckel

(2017). Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and Talented International,, 32(2), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685

21.

Moretti

van Vliet

Bensing

Deledda

Mazzi

RimondiniZimmermann

M. C.

Zimmermann

Fletcher

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

22.

Plunkett

Kronborg

(2021). Teaching gifted education to pre-service teachers: Lessons learned. In Smith

S. R.

(Ed), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1409–1430). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_67

23.

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

24.

Seo

Y. R.

(2014). 초등영재교사의 교사경력 및 영재연수여부와 수학영재프로그램의 구성 및 실행수준에 대한 인식간의 관계 [Effect of teacher experience and teacher training in gifted education on teachers’ perception on designing and conducting mathematics special programs for gifted students]. Master’s thesis. Korea University. http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13542736

25.

Sharma

Sokal

(2015). The impact of a teacher education course on pre‐service teachers' beliefs about inclusion: An international comparison. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12043

26.

Sieberer-Nagler

(2016). Effective classroom-management and positive teaching. English Language Teaching, 9(1), 163–172. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1087130

27.

Sokal

Woloshyn

Funk-Unrau

(2013). How important is practicum to pre-service teacher development for inclusive teaching? Effects on efficacy in classroom management. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 285–298. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1028041

28.

Swain

K. D.

Nordness

P. D.

Leader-Janssen

E. M.

(2012). Changes in pre-service teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.565386

29.

Taliaferro

A. R.

Hammond

Wyant

(2015). Pre-service physical educators’ self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusion: The impact of coursework and practicum. Adopted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2013-0112

30.

Tsui

A. B. M.

(2011). Teacher education and teacher development. In Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (2, pp. 21–39). Routledge.