Although the findings answered the research questions, some limitations in scope of this research must also be considered. The first limitation derives from the convenience sampling in locating the research sites. The study involved respondents from two regions and six participants only. Therefore, the findings cannot fully reflect the perspectives of all principals of schools for gifted children in Kazakhstan, and this fact lessens the degree of generalizability of this research. Hence, replicating this study in other regions of our country to hear more perspectives and compare different regions might produce other thoughts on this issue.
Furthermore, the process of interviewing might have some limitations in terms of honesty in the answers of the participants. As Cresswell (2012) mentions, interviewees might provide “indirect”, biased, or limited information. Principals might also give socially desirable answers to present themselves from a more positive perspective. This means that credibility of the research findings is directly dependent on the participants’ loyalty and genuine interest in the topic.
Another limitation is the fact that this research only scrutinized principals’ views on this topic. To view equity from other angles, it is suggested to study other stakeholders’
opinions too. For instance, the potential participants for future research may be parents, teachers as well as students who are already enrolled or hoping to study in the schools for the gifted. Therefore, it is not possible to make an assumption on equity in gifted education programs relying on principals’ perceptions only. However, this study has provided an initial discussion on this issue that should be used to help move the discussion on this topic forward.
Moreover, as the research findings revealed, there is little awareness about twice- exceptional students who are characterized as gifted children and formally diagnosed with one or more disabilities. The lack of knowledge on understanding these students’ peculiarities can
be considered one of the reasons for difficulties in accepting this category of students to gifted education programs. Therefore, examining principals’ perceptions of inclusive education and special education is also advised.
Lastly, it is recommended to study equity of outcomes in gifted education programs because this study was mostly focused on investigating equity of access and participation.
Although it revealed underrepresentation issues at a school level, the correlation between the accessibility of gifted education programs and students’ future education choices as well as equity issues in applying for higher educational organizations are areas that are yet to be scrutinized.
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 55 References
Aamidor, S. (2007). Identification and intervention for rural, low-income, gifted students:
A follow-up study. Gifted Children, 2(1), 2.
Almås, I., & Johnsen, Å. (2012). The cost of living in China: Implications for inequality and poverty. NHH Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper, (21), 1-41.
Ambrose, D., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education?. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453-478.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990. U.S. Code. Vol. 42, secs. 12101-213.
Ayers, W., Quinn, T. M., & Stovall, D. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of social justice in education. Routledge.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In L. Darling- Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in sociology.
Routledge.
Banks, A. (2012). Equal educational opportunities act of 1974. In J. A. Banks
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (Vol. 1, pp. 804-804). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452218533.n255
Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 25-38). Routledge.
Benadusi, L. (2006). . In N. Bottani & L. Benadusi (Eds.), Uguaglianza ed equità nella scuola (pp. 19-38). Trento. Erickson.
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 56 Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance: Conceptual,
methodological, and empirical dimensions (Vol. 17). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brandsma, J. (2002). Education, equality and social exclusion. Final synthesis report.
Brussels. Retrieved from
ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/improving/docs/ser_clusters_education_social_exclusion_
synthesis.pdf
Brighouse, H. (2003). School choice and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, K. (2006). “New” educational injustices in the “new” South Africa: A call for justice in the form of vertical equity. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(5), 509-519.
Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 98-104.
Castellano, J. (2011). Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hui, H. (1998). Deciding on equity or parity: A test of situational, cultural, and individual factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(2), 115-129.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2007). Content analysis and grounded theory. Research methods in education, 3rd Ed. London: Routledge.
Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1995). Almaty.
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 57 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Cuervo, H. (2016). Understanding social justice in rural education. Springer.
Dai, D. Y. (2013). Excellence at the cost of social justice? Negotiating and balancing priorities in gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(2), 93-101.
De Boer, G. C., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Kamphof, G. (2013). Gifted education in the Netherlands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 133–150.
DeVillar, R. (1986). Computers and educational equity within the United States: An overview and examination of computer uses in education. Stanford-‐UNESCO Symposium on Computers in Education.
Dörnyei, Z., & Griffee, D. T. (2010). Research methods in applied linguistics. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 181-183.
Esquierdo, J. J., & Arreguín-Anderson, M. (2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35-47.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education:
Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap: Learning from the experiences of gifted Black students. Urban
Education, 43(2), 216-239.
Ford. D. Y. (1998). Factors affecting the career decision making of minority teachers in gifted education. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut, National Research
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 58 Center on the Gifted and Talented
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fu, T. (2017). Wandering in the Shadow of Egalitarianism and Equity: A social and cultural Explanation to the Underdeveloped Gifted Education in China. Global Education Review, 4(1), 34-44.
Grantham, T. C. (2012). Eminence-focused gifted education: Concerns about forward movement void of an equity vision. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 215-220.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). What is This Constructivist Paradigm Anyway? In Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 79-90.
Gwiazda, R. (1983). The Peter Pan proposal. Harvard Education Review, 53, 384-388.
Hess, F. & Kelly, A. (2005). The accidental principal: What doesn’t get taught at ed schools? Education Next, 5(3), 34-40.
Heuser, B. L., Wang, K., & Shahid, S. (2017). Global Dimensions of Gifted and Talented Education: The Influence of National Perceptions on Policies and Practices. Global Education Review, 4(1), 4-21.
Hill, D. (2003) „Global Neo-Liberalism, the Deformation of Education and Resistance‟, Journal for Critical Educational Policy Studies, 1(1). Retrieved from
http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=7
Hurn, C. (1993) The limits and possibilities of schooling. Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (1997). Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat.
37.
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100- 297). Amended by No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-110) Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/618.html
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 59 Jansen, J. D., & Sayed, Y. (2001). Implementing education policies: the South African
experience. Juta and Company Ltd.
Johns, R. L., Morphet, E. L., & Alexander, K. (1983). Tbe economics and^ nancrng of education (4*^ Ed.).
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Jolly, J. L., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994–2003: A disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 427- 446.
Kennedy, M., & Power, M. J. (2010). “The smokescreen of meritocracy”: Elite Education in Ireland and the Reproduction of class privilege. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 8(2), 223-248.
Kettler, T., Russell, J., & Puryear, J. S. (2015). Inequitable access to gifted education:
Variance in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 99-117.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 35.
Kokot, S. (1998). Fulfilling potential: Options for educating gifted learners in South Africa. Unpublished research report, University of South Africa.
Kvale, S. (2007). Analyzing interviews. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Doing interviews, 101-119.
London: Sage
Levin, B. (2003). Approaches to equity in policy for lifelong learning. Paper
Commissioned by the Education and Training Policy Division of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the Equity in Education Thematic Review.
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 60 Maiztegui-Oñate, C. & Santibanez-Gruber, R. (2008). Access to education end equity in
plural societies. Intercultural Education, 19(5), 373-381.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Routledge.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research, 1, 159-176.
Mazie, S. (2009). Equality, race and gifted education: An egalitarian critique of admission to NewYork City's specialized high schools. School Field, 7(1), 5-25.
McCann, M. (2005). International perspectives on giftedness: Experimental and cultural observations of IQ and creativity with implications for curriculum and policy design. International Education Journal, 6(2), 125–135.
McNamee, S.J. & Miller, R.K. (2004). The Meritocracy Myth. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Merry, M. S., & Arum, R. (2018). Can schools fairly select their students? Theory and Research in Education, 16(3), 330-350.
MOES (Ministry of Education and Science). (1996). Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Kazakhstan: About the State Support and Development of Schools for Gifted Children. Almaty, MOES.
Montgomery, D. (2013). Gifted and talented children with special educational needs:
Double exceptionality. Routledge.
Morley, L., & Lussier, K. (2009). Intersecting poverty and participation in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 19(2), 71-85.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century:
Shifting the paradigm.
Nazarbayev, N. (2014). “Kazakhstan’s way – 2050: common aim, common interests,
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 61 common future”. Address of the President of Kazakhstan to the nation. Retrieved 17 January 2014 from
http://www.akorda.kz/kz/addresses/addresses_of_president/kazakstan-
respublikasynyn-prezidenti-nenazarbaevtyn-kazakstan-halkyna-zholdauy-2014- zhylgy-17-kantar
Nichols, M. (1987). Socrates and the political community: An ancient debate. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
NIS (Nazarbayev Intellectual School). (2011). Autonomous Educational Organisation
“Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools” Annual Report, 2011. Astana: NIS. Retrieved from http://www.nis.edu.kz/en/about/reports/?id=560
NIS (Nazarbayev Intellectual School). (2018). Autonomous Educational Organisation
“Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools” Annual Report, 2018. Astana: NIS. Retrieved from http://www.nis.edu.kz/en/about/reports/?id=8161
OECD (2017). Education at a glance, 2007: OECD indicators. Paris, FR: OECD
OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
OECD/The World, Bank. (2015). OECD Reviews of School Resources: Kazakhstan 2015.
Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-reviews-of-school- resources-kazakhstan-2015-9789264245891-en.htm
Omdal, S. (2015). Twice exceptionality from a practitioner’s perspective. Gifted Child Today, 38(4), 246-248.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Ten steps to equity in education. Policy Brief. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/education/school/39989494.pdf
Oswald, M., & De Villiers, J. M. (2013). Including the gifted learner: perceptions of South
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 62 African teachers and principals. South African Journal of Education, 33(1).
Özdemir, C. A. N. E. R. (2015). Relationship between equity and excellence in education:
multilevel analysis of international student assessment data with a focus on turkey (Doctoral dissertation, Tesis inédita. Middle East Technical University).
Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Leading Edge Perspectives on Gifted Assessment. Altas
habilidades/Superdotação (AH/SD) e Criatividade: Identificação e Atendimento [Giftedness and Creativity: Identification and Specialized Service], 95-122.
Puryear, J. S., & Kettler, T. (2017). Rural gifted education and the effect of proximity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(2), 143-152.
Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), 563.
Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-
exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217-230.
Resch, C. (2014). National policies and strategies for the support of the gifted and talented in Austria. CEPS Journal, 4(3), 9-30.
Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., & Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: Schools and the
‘‘research to practice gap’’ in children’s mental health. School Psychology Review, 32, 153–168.
Rizvi, F. (1998). Some thoughts on contemporary theories of social justice. In B. Atweh, S., Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 47-56). London, Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies 84 UK: Routledge Falmer.
Ross, J. A., & Berger, M. J. (2009). Equity and leadership: Research-based strategies for school leaders. School leadership and management, 29(5), 463-476.
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 63 Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Equity, excellence, and school reform: Why is finding common
ground so hard. Rethinking gifted education, 10, 127-142.
Sen, A. K. (1982). Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Shuy, R. W. (2003). In-person versus telephone interviewing. Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns, 175-193.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, 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.
Thomson, D. L. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics , 21 (4), 662-712.
UN General Assembly (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f47924.
UN General Assembly. (1948). "Universal declaration of human rights" (217 [III] A).
Paris. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
UNESCO. (2017). UNESCO Handbook on measuring equity in education. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/handbook-measuring-equity- education-2018-en.pdf
UNESCO. (2017). UNESCO Task Force on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/247785en.pdf
Valli, L., Cooper, D., & Frankes, L. (1997). Chapter 5: Professional Development Schools
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 64 and Equity: A Critical Analysis of Rhetoric and Research. Review of research in education, 22(1), 251-304.
Van der Westhuizen, C., & Maree, J. G. (2006). Some thoughts on the training of teachers of gifted learners. Gifted education international, 21(2-3), 201-217.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Wood, E., Levinson, M., Postlethwaite, K., & Black, A. E. (2011). Equity matters.
Retrieved from
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/3509/EquityMatters.pdf?
sequence=7
Wood, P. (2006). Qualitative Research. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/qualitative%20methods%202/quairshm.ht m
Wright, B. L., Ford, D. Y., & Young, J. L. (2017). Ignorance or Indifference? Seeking Excellence and Equity for Under-Represented Students of Color in Gifted Education. Global Education Review, 4(1), 45-60.
Yakavets, N. (2014). Reforming society through education for gifted children: the case of Kazakhstan. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 513-533.
Youdell, D. G. D., & Gillborn, D. (2000). Rationing education: policy, practice, reform and equity. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 65
Appendices Appendix A.
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
PROJECT TITLE: PRINCIPALS’ PERSPECTIVES ON EQUITABLE ACCESS TO GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Time of interview:
Date:
Interviewer:
Interviewee:
Dear Participant,
My name is Galiya Daulet. I am a master degree student at Nazarbayev University. Thank you for taking time to participate in this interview. The purpose is to get your perceptions of equitable access to gifted education programs. If it is possible the interviews will be audio recorded with your permission. No one will use your name in reports, so your privacy will be protected. The results of the study will be used for scholarly purposes only.
Interview will last approximately 20 minutes. Please feel free to ask if you need any clarifications for the interview questions.
[Please read and sign the consent form] [Turn on the tape recorder]
Interview questions
1. What is your working experience as a school principal at schools for gifted children?
2. What are the main aspects of school admission policies of your school?
3. Does your school admission policy consider the equity as well as equality of opportunities?
4. How do you understand these concepts?
5. Does your school enrollment policy address the admission of students of diverse societal backgrounds (children from rural areas, orphanages, national minorities, low-income families or with physical/mental disabilities)?
6. Are there any other potential barriers to ensuring equitable access?
7. How does your school consider and address diverse needs of learners once they are admitted to your school? (teaching & learning, extra-curricular, school counselling services, etc)
8. Are there any other potential barriers to ensuring equitable participation?
9. What do you think could be done to prevent/overcome these problems?
10. In your opinion, should our Kazakhstani schools for gifted children consider only equality issues, is there room for equity? Why?
[Thank the participant for their cooperation and participation in this interview]
EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS 66 СҰХБАТ ХАТТАМАСЫ
ЖОБА ТАҚЫРЫБЫ: ДАРЫНДЫ БАЛАЛАРДЫ ОҚЫТУ БАҒДАРЛАМАЛАРЫНА ӘДІЛЕТТІ ҚОЛЖЕТІМДІЛІК БОЙЫНША
МЕКТЕП ДИРЕКТОРЛАРЫНЫҢ ПІКІРЛЕРІ Сұхбат уақыты:
Күні:
Сауалнамаға қатысушы:
Сауалнама жүргізушісі:
Құрметті қатысушы,
Менің атым Ғалия Даулет . Мен Назарбаев Университетінің магистрантымын. Осы сұхбатқа қатысу үшін уақыт бөлгеніңізге рахмет.Менің зерттеу жұмысымның мақсаты - дарынды балаларға білім беру бағдарламаларының қолжетімділігіне байланысты мектеп директорларының пікірін білу. Егер мүмкін болса, Сіздің рұқсатыңызбен бұл сұхбат таспаға жазылады. Сіздің есіміңіз ешқандай есепте қолданылмайды, сондықтан берілген ақпараттың құпиялылығы қорғалады.
Зерттеудің нәтижелері ғылыми мақсат үшін ғана пайдаланылады. Сұхбат шамамен 20 минутқа созылады. Сауалнама сұрақтарына қатысты қандай да бір түсініктемелер қажет болған жағдайда айтуыңызды өтінемін.
[Келісім формасын оқып, қол қойыңыз] [Таспаны қосыңыз]
Сауалнама сұрақтары
1. Дарынды балаларға арналған мектептерде директор ретінде жұмыс тәжірибеңізбен бөліссеңіз?
2. Сіздің мектебіңізге қабылдану талаптарында қарастырылатын негізгі аспектілер қандай?
3. Сіздің мектебіңізге қабылдану саясатында мүмкіншіліктердің теңдігімен қатар әділеттілігіне назар аударылады ма?
4. Бұл ұғымдарды қалай түсінесіз?
5.Сіздің мектебіңізге қабылдау саясаты қоғамның әртүрлі өкілдерінен шыққан оқушылардың қабылдануына бағытталған ба? (ауылдық мекеннен келген, жетім, әр түрлі ұлт өкілдері, әлеуметтік жағдайы төмен балалар, мүмкіндігі шектеулі
балаларға қолдау, т.б.) Емтиханнан бұрын алдын-ала қолдау көрсетіледі ме?
6. Сіздің мектебіңізде әділетті қолжетімділік бойынша басқа қандай кедергілер болуы мүмкін?
7.Жоғарыда айтылған үміткерлер мектепке қабылданған жағдайда қандай қолдау көрсете аласыздар?
8. Қандай кедергілерге ұшырауы мүмкін?
9. аталған мәселердің қалай алдын алуға немесе шешуге болады?
10. Дарынды балаларға оқитын мектептерде білім беру мүмкіншіліктердің әділеттігіне теңдігіне бағытталған дұрыс па?
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Principals’ perspectives on equitable access to gifted education programs
DESCRIPTION: You are invited to participate in a research study on investigating
principal’s view on equity and access to gifted education. You will be asked to participate in the interview. The interview will be also audio-taped which be heard by the researcher only. If you feel uncomfortable, you may ask that it be turned off at any time. Audio files and
interview transcripts will be password protected for at least two years and will be used for study purposes only.
TIME INVOLVEMENT: Your participation will take approximately 20 minutes.
RISKS AND BENEFITS: There are minimal risks to the participants associated with this study. It is possible to skip a particular question or stop the interview at any stage of the research. The benefits which may reasonably be expected to result from this study is that as a participant you will have an opportunity to share your own vision of equity which may contribute to changes in the admission policies of the schools for gifted children. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect you negatively in our employment.
PARTICIPANT’S RIGHTS: If you have read this form and have decided to participate in this project, please understand your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. The alternative is not to participate.
You have the right to refuse to answer particular questions. The results of this research study may be presented at scientific or professional meetings or published in scientific journals.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Questions: If you have any questions, concerns or complaints about this research, its procedures, risks and benefits, contact the Master’s Thesis Supervisor for this student work Independent Contact: If you are not satisfied with how this study is being conducted, or if you have any concerns, complaints, or general questions about the research or your rights as a participant, please contact the NUGSE Research Committee to at
Please sign this consent from if you agree to participate in this study.
• I have carefully read the information provided;
• I have been given full information regarding the purpose and procedures of the study;